Full text of "Jewish War Of Survival ( 1947)"

See other formats

| $
ARNOLD LEESE

- : ie ed

THE JEWISH WAR
OF SURVIVAL

ARNOLD LEESE

Price
Five Shillings
One Dollar

Published By the Author
The White House, 20 Pewley Hill, Guildford

Surrey, England

FIRST EDITION, SEPTEMBER, 1945

SECOND EDITION, APRIL, 1947

Printed In the U. S. A.

for
Arnold Leese, 20, Pewley Hill, Guildford
Surrey, England

Foreword

The first edition of my book took nine months to
complete. I began work on it in the Spring of 1945.
Berlin had fallen and Hitler had died among his soldiers.
Mussolini had been bestially murdered. The San Fran-
cisco Conference was in full swing.

This book has entailed many hundreds of hours of
labour. Working entirely by hand, with the aid of a few
friends, countless difficulties had to be overcome. Owing
to the limited number of first edition copies produced, I
asked my friends to make known the facts contained
herein.

The appalling events which have taken place in
Europe since the Spring of 1945 are sufficient justifica-
tion for all that I have written. As long ago as 1924 I
stated that there are two things worse, even, than war.
The one is INJUSTICE. The other is a Bolshevist Peace!

ARNOLD LEESE
22nd December 1945

iii

Dedicated to the hundreds of patriotice
Britons who, with the Author, were im-
prisoned without charge or trial during the
Second World War.

Preface

I stood, as Mr. Richard Stokes, M. P., stood, for a
negotiated peace, but, possibly, on vastly different
grounds. Mr. Stokes was not interned, because he will
not face the Jewish Menace. Since the beginning of the
War, I did what little I could in favour of a negotiated
peace, no matter which side was for the moment on top.
I believe that the War was, from the National standpoint,
a disaster—wrong and unnecessary. For holding similar
views on other wars contemporary to them, such well-
known men as: Pitt, Fox, Bright, Lloyd George, Ramsay
MacDonald and the present Home Secretary Herbert
Morrison were not interned. There is of course a dif-
ference in my case, as I am attacking the Jews and they
were not, and the Jew holds supreme power.

I have attacked the Jews before and won a great
mora] victory over them. The Jews had me imprisoned
for six months in 1936 for what was said to be a “public
mischief” in that I mentioned in my paper, “The Fascist,”
the subject of Jewish Ritual Murder. Evidently judging
me by their own standards, they thought to frighten me
into silence. When I came out of prison I published a
book on the subject, and they honoured me by maintaining
a silence so intense that it could almost be heard! They
were afraid to advertise it by taking another action against
me. I defied them successfully and the book has since
been distributed all over the world. I hope therefore to
do it successfully again.

This War was Jewish and has never had any other
object than the salvation of the Jews from Hitler. The

first nine chapters of this book disprove the “causes” given
from time to time by politicians and others for our being
in a War which even the ignorant mob had sensed and
labelled “phoney.” The Tenth Chapter deals with a half-
truth prevalent amongst the better-informed. The rest
of the book completes my case that the War was Jewish
and that Britain was forced into it for Jewish purposes.
The world has only seen one more stupendous bluff than
this war, and that was Jewish too.

ARNOLD LEESE
20 Pewley Hill,
Guildford, Surrey
5th May 1945

PREFACE TO THE. SECOND EDITION

The first edition, limited a a few hundred copies pro-
duced by my friends after great exertion by the roneo
process, was at once sold out.

In this second edition some changes have been made
in the text and new material has been added. An index
and Appendices have been included. Appendix I is on
the War of Extermination which is still going on. Only
the means have changed. Then it was bombing. Now
it is starvation. Appendix II is an outline of what the
world rejected in Hitler’s peace offer of April 1, 1936.
Appendix III is an unpublished letter on the Nuremberg
Trial sent to the (London) Times. Appendix IV is on
new appointments.

ARNOLD LEESE
lst April 1947

PREFACE............

CHAPTER I

CHAPTER II

CHAPTER III

CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER V

CHAPTER VI

CHAPTER VII

CHAPTER VIII

CHAPTER IX

Contents

We Fought to Save Poland’s
Independence. ..............cieeeeeeeeeee ee eeece eee

“We Are Fighting In Defense of
Freedom” (Lord Halifax) .................

“We Are Fighting for Peace”
(Lord Halifax) oo... ...e cece ceceeceeeee cee ee ees

“We Are Meeting a Challenge to
Our Own Security” (Lord Hali-
TAX) ERE sn ehmak terete E Sarees

“We Are Defending the Rights
All Nations to Live Their Own
Lives” and “Fighting Against
Substitution of Brute Force for
Law As the Arbiter Between Na-
tions” (Lord Halifax)........00000000000000.

“We Are Fighting Against the
Violation of the Sanctity of Trea-
ties and Disregard of the Pledged

“We Are Fighting Today for the
Preservation of Christian Princi-
ples” (The (London) Times,
17th Feb. 1940)...

“We Are Fighting As Our Fath-
ers Fought to Uphold the Doc-
trine That All Men Are Equal In
the Sight of God” (Franklin D.
Roosevelt, 6th Jan. 1942)... 2...

“We Are Fighting for Democ-
TACY cent et oe lt set dat SPI se

CHAPTER X

CHAPTER XI

The Theory That High Finance
Caused the War. ..........0. cece eeecceeeeeeeee 48

The Object Is to Destroy Fas-

cism and Hitlerism..........................-... 50
CHAPTER XII Unprepared and Blindfolded............ 55
CHAPTER XIII Hitler Always Knew His Real
| OF +=) 41 hee ee 60
CHAPTER XIV Hitler Wanted Peace With
Britain. oo... e cee ccecceccceeccceccccececeeeee cones 64
CHAPTER XV How Britain Was Egged On to
Make Wab......-2....ccc.ccccccccccccecececeeeeceseee 68
CHAPTER XVI The Jews Acknowledge Their
Power and Threaten.......0..0...00..00022--- T4
CHAPTER XVII The Jews Declare War........0......020..-- 79
CHAPTER XVIII The Jewish War............0....2...ccccseeeeeeee 89
CHAPTER XIX The Peace: Britain Defeated—
Whoever WiI0S...........002.2222:00cceeeeeeeeeee ee 104
CHAPTER XX Conclusion. ._..2-.0. cece cece eceeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee aaa 108
APPENDICES:
I The War of Extermination....00000000000000cce eee 110
II What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace
Offer of April 1, 1936..................ceecccccceeeee eee ceeee 112
III The Nuremberg Trial......0000000000000000000000000000014- 114
IV New Appointments... cee eee cent eee 115
Bibliography. ..............2222220cccceecee cee cece cceeeeeeeeseeeeececnceneeserereeees 119
TEND DD, notes EE EEEE ence tiar ts nels Moc ed ieet as 120-124

Chapter I

WE FOUGHT TO SAVE POLAND'S INDEPENDENCE

Was it in defense of Poland that we were sent to
War?

Assurance of British support to Poland if she were
attacked was officially announced by Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain on 31st March 1939 in these words:

“In the event of any action which clearly threat-
ens Polish independence and which the Polish Gov-
evrnment think necessary to oppose with their national
forces, Britain and France will give all the support
in their power.”

At first sight, it would seem that the independence of
Poland was a cause upon which the British Empire was
ready to stake its whole existence. A short contempla-
tion of that theory is enough to dispose of it.

Poland’s geographical position alone rendered it ut-
terly impractictable for us to protect that country’s in-
dependence against the armed might of Germany. We may
think what we like of the moral stature or moral dwarf-
dom of the members of His Majesty’s Government, but
they are at least intelligent enough not to need to con-
sult some twelve-year-old schoolgirl with her six-penny
atlas in a matter so obvious. When they allowed Mr.
Chamberlain to make this statement, almost but not quite
unchallenged, they knew that success was impossible.

That is the point: They knew!

In other words, they acted without consideration for
the welfare of their country and Empire in risking the
annihilation of both for something they knew impossible
to achieve.

Lord Arnold condemned this pact with Poland as

“". . one of the most unwise decisions ever made
by a British Government.”

A few other members of the two Houses spoke in a
similar strain, but that was all!

Within a month, the future slaughter was assured by
the adoption of compulsory military training for all Brit-
ish males on reaching the age of twenty. The call for
National Service had already been made in the form of
a booklet sent to every household in the country and com-
piled by Humbert Wolfe, a Jew.

The formal agreement of Mutual Assistance was
made on the 25th 1939 and was accompanied by a huge
loan to Poland. Those who made it knew there could
be no such thing as mutual assistance between Poland and
Britain. By the time Britain could, by some miracle,
operate to “save” Poland, the patient would be dead.
Article 2 of this document left it to Poland to decide
when the British Empire should risk al] in war,

Our assistance was made to depend upon “action by
a European Power which clearly threatened, directly or
indirectly the independence” of Poland and “was of such
a nature that the Party in question” (Poland) “consid-
ered it vital to resist with its armed forces.” It was not
left to Britain or France to do the considering. If the
Polish Government considered, we had to come in. It is
important, therefore, to recall that the Polish Foreign
Minister at the time was Colonel Beck, son of a converted
Jew,* and that the correspondent in England of the Polish
Telegraph Agency was Stefan Litauer, also a Jew. Our
Foreign Minister was Lord Halifax, whose son and heir
married the grand-daughter of a Rothschild. Our War
Minister was Hore-Belisha, a Jew.

When Col. Beck died in 1944, it was typical of the
conspiracy of silence maintained by the Press, that the
Times (London) obituary notice, although describing how
Beck visited England to discuss the future agreement
which dragged us into war, made no mention of him be-
ing a Jew.

*“Polish Foreign Minister Joseph Beck is of Jewish origin,” his

father being “a converted Jew from Galicia.” (Jewish Daily Post,
28th July, 1935.)

It might be suggested that we had heavy financial
commitments and interests in Poland, and that the wicked
capitalist was responsible for sending us to war to save
his Polish bacon. But the capitalist knew just as well as
the politicans that his capital in Poland could not be saved
by any effort that Britain or France could make, but
would on the outbreak of war run the risk of destruction
with the certainty of confiscation by the enemy of any part
of it escaping destruction.

Then, again, was this British capital in Poland im-
portant enough to preserve at the cost of war with Ger-
many, even if it could have been saved thereby? A Jew,
L. Wellisez, in his book FOREIGN CAPITAL IN POLAND
gives figures showing that as late as 1937 less than 6 per
cent of foreign capital invested in Poland was “British,”
27 per cent was “French,” and 19 per cent was ‘‘United
States.” You are left to guess what proportion of this
“British,” “French” and “United States” capital was in
fact Jewish. We know that the Prudential Assurance
Company (whose Jewish connections are so powerful that
it loaned half a million pounds to the Jewish town of Tel
Aviv in Palestine in 1986—a very shaky security) owned
the Warsaw Prudential Assurance Company, which in
turn, had big industrial interlockings in Poland. But
even from a soulless international capitalist’s standpoint,
between Germany and Poland, it was not for Poland that
worth a war to preserve.

Although the war started as a result of the quarrel
between Germany and Poland, it was not for Poland that
Britain went to war. I have shown that Chamberlain’s
pledge and the agreement made later between Britain and
Poland are inexplicable unless a non-British factor was
the ruling influence. That non-British factor could only
be the Jewish Money Power acting, this time, not in the
interests of Jewish money alone but to make sure that
Britain should throw her strength into a fight for the sur-
vival of the Jews.

Poland was a country in which Britain herself was

not greatly interested. It was, however, a direct Jewish
interest, just as Czechoslovakia was. Even the “Times”
(London) admitted on the 4th April 1939 that:

“Jews are the chief owners of urban real estate in
Poland.”

Handbook No. 48, POLAND, published under the di-
rection of the Historical Section of the Foreign Office,
says:

“Society in Poland is badly balanced. In the coun-
try, all the power lay in the hands of the nobles; in the
towns, in the hands of the Jews.”

On the next page it says:

“Jewish control of trade and commerce so preju-
diced these pursuits in the eyes of the Polish upper
classes that they became practically a Jewish monopoly.”

Poland was a sort of last refuge of the Jews and it
was crowded with them. At the end of 1938, eleven big
Jewish capitalists alone “worth” altogether 660 million
zlothy or nearly 17 million pounds sterling at the pre-
war rate were operating in Poland. The Jewish Dr.
Litauer wrote in QUERY in 1938 (quoted in Jewish Chron-
icle—London—March 24, 1944) that Jews constituted
62 per cent of those engaged in trade and commerce, and
that only 23'% per cent were workmen; whereas, even with-
out taking agriculture into consideration (a purely Gen-
tile industry—A. L.) 53 per cent of the Gentiles in Poland
were workmen and only 17 per cent were employers.

The above analysis of the situation shows that Po-
land was a Jewish interest rather than a British one. But
I will go further and assert that not only was Poland not
a British interest, but that Britain and the British Gov-
ernment do not care a straw about Poland. They have
proved it both by their actions and by their inaction dur-
ing the war itself.

When Germany was quickly over-running Poland in
1939 Russia stepped in, in the most literal sense of the

term and occupied by force the Eastern half of that
country. It was a pure act of aggression and caused the
complete collapse of Polish resistance against Germany.

What was the reaction in Britain?
No one seemed to care very much.

German aggression was one thing—but Russian ag-
gression was quite another.

Lloyd George, writing to the Polish Ambassador over
here (London) said he was delighted that our Govern-
ment has shown no indication of placing the Russian ad-
vance into Poland in the same category as that of the
German!

It is, of course, easy to point out that to declare war
on Russia because of her invasion of Poland would have
been suicidal for the Allies. But can it be said to be any
more suicidal than it was to declare war on Germany for
doing the same thing? The alternative to declaring war
on Russia for her aggression was to admit that nothing we
could do would save Poland, and to make peace with Ger-
many and withdraw from the war. But that would not
have suited the Jews, so we continued the fight—which
shows that it was not Poland we were worrying about.

Well, Russia was driven out of Poland by the Ger-
mans and after many days came back in 1943 and 1944.
The old frontiers of Poland were again invaded by Russia.
On the 18th October 1943, the “Times” (London) in a
leading article stated:

“Russia claims no extension of the frontiers held
by her when Hitler unleashed his invading hordes in
June, 1941; and after all that she has endured and
achieved in the last two years, any proposal to curtail
them would be clearly resented as ill-conceived and
ill-timed.”’

No! There was nothing to be said for poor, weak
Poland! It was a case of Russia’s “liberating armies.” It
seems that the independence of Poland that we were sup-

posed to have gone to war about really meant, at most,
the independence of its Western half!

Stalin remained embarrassingly silent about his in-
tentions. The spokesmen for His Majesty’s Government
pretended that they hadn’t noticed anything. So much
so, that it was possible for the Jewish Sir Percy Harris
to say in the House of Commons (London Times, Novem-
ber 12, 1942) that he

“|. . was satisfied that Mr. Eden would see that
the Polish people were not overlooked in the redrawing
of the map of Europe.”

Surely this remark, after more than four years of
frightful war “for the independence of Poland” deserves
to be considered as a priceless pointer to the truth.

The Soviet’s Jewish Amdassador to Mexico, Ouman-
sky, was the first actually to drop a brick for his Govern-
ment. He intimated in an address (according to the Lon-
don Times, 12th Nov. 1943) that

“Russia regards as hers the Polish territory occu-
pied in the summer of 1939.”

Bagged! The Soviet Government confirmed this view
in 1944,

A sham Government without mandate or country
to rule over, was established for Poland in England. Gen-
era] Sikorski, its Premier, was provided with officers for
his puppet Government by none other than Lord Na-
thaniel Rothschild, the friendship between the two, Gen-
tile and Jew, being of long standing (Evening News, 18th
Sept. 1942). Ah! These Rothschild chums!

Meanwhile in the real Poland which Russia had in-
vaded, Polish Mayors and Town Councils had in many
places been displaced by Jews, and here and there by
Ukrainians. (London Times, 2nd Oct. 1939).

In 1943, the Germans stated that they had discovered
a pit at Katin, near Smolensk, filled with the bodies of
thousands of Polish officers who had been murdered,

they said, by the Russians. They had all been shot in
the back of the head. The Polish puppet Government in
London asked the International Red Cross to investigate
the matter. The Soviet Government would not allow it
and cancelled diplomatic relations.

Now, if Britain was so anxious in 1939 that the in-
dependence of Poland should be preserved at any price,
is it not certain that the fate of many thousands of men
of the best blood of Poland should be a matter of serious
concern to her?

But, no!

Every method of damping down publicity for the
frightful outrage was resorted to. The Germans were
held accountable. Had the British Government really
thought that this horrible record in mass-murder had
been achieved by the Nazis, would it not have given the
matter the utmost publicity? Neither the Polish nor the
British authorities believed the story that these officers
had been massacred by the Germans.

It leaked out that some ten thousand or more Polish
officers captured by the Russians after the fighting of
September, 1939, had been put into camps. Since early
1940 the Polish Red Cross had no news of them. The
Russians say they were liberated but it is fairly certain
they were liquidated.

The Soviets made their own investigation They
blamed the Nazis for the murders. No one believed that.
The British Government cared as little as though these
finest of Poland’s manhood had been stray cats. The sit-
uation was shamelessly summed up in the Daily Sketch
with these words:

“It is recognized in diplomatic quarters that refusal
to accept the testimonies of the Soviet Commission
would finally close the door to Russo-Polish rapproch-
ment.” (27th January 1944.)

The British Government never insisted on an inde-

pendent inquiry. The press was kept silent on the sub-
ject for a while and then democracy forgot all about it.*

The sham-Polish Government had a lot of trouble
about anti-Semitism in its army. This kept cropping up
in incidents. Now that was something that the British
Government could not overlook. It was not a matter of
Polish officers being murdered. It was one of Jews being
annoyed. That makes a difference. So the British Gov-
ernment prevented the Polish News (London Polish Week-
ly—Ed.) from continuing publication by withdrawing its
paper supply. When the anti-semitism caused Jewish
soldiers to desert, the sham Polish Government in London
was informed officially of “the great importance which
His Majesty’s Government attached to the Polish Govern-
ment’s continuing and intensifying their efforts to eradi-
cate any manifestations of anti-semitism in the Polish
forces stationed in this country.”

I have said enough to demonstrate that it never was
Poles that the British Government was concerned about,
but Jews. Murder ten thousand or more Polish officers
and you can get away with it. Oppose the Jewish domi-
nation of your nation’s affairs, or their participation in
them, and if you are a Pole, the British Government will
exert “pressure” on you. If you are a Briton, you will be
put into Prison for years without charge or trial and the
Courts will be used against you if you try, through them,
to regain your liberty. Yes, even up to and including
that ultimate Court of Appeal—the House of Lords itself.

So we did not go to war for Poland or the Poles.
Mr. R. J. Davis, M. P., said in the House on 24th May
1944, that it is doubtful whether the British Government
would have a word to say about the kind of Poland that

“An article in the New Leader (U. S. A.) 14th October, 1943,
page 5, by Alexander Kerensky, known among White Russian exiles
as a half-Jew, Premier of the Provisional Government in Russia
before the Bolshevik Revolution, reveals that General Sikorski knew
for at least two years before the German discovery of the Katin
pit of dead that these officers had disappeared but the General re-
mained silent because of the effect that the mystery would have had
on his Polish Army.

would emerge after the conflict as “Stalin would deter-
mine that!” (He did—Ed.)

Russia will tolerate no border state that is not Bol-
shevised. The word “liberated”? as applied to Poland is
an odious and overworked hypocrisy. Churchill an-
nounced his submission to Stalin in these words:

“Territorial changes on the frontier of Poland there
will have to be. Russia has a right to our support in
this matter, because it is the Russian armies which alone
can deliver Poland from German talons; and after all
the Russian people have suffered at the hands of Ger-
many, they are entitled to safe frontiers and to have
a friendly neighbour on their Western flanks.” (House
of Commons, September 1944.)

Russia set up another Polish Government in Lublin
and this Bolshevik Government was set up in Warsaw in
1945 without the consent of Britain. No protest was made
by Britain. Thus the ostensible cause of our going to war
is proved to be a sham. We were sent to war on false
pretenses. That such a thing is possible illustrates the
truth of my contention that Democracy is Death—in this
case the death of Britannia that Ruled the Waves.

Chapter II

“WE ARE FIGHTING IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM”
—Lord Halifax

Everyone is agreed that under Civilization there can-
not be complete freedom. That is only obtainable under
anarchy, with consequences few people would care to
suffer. Therefore we may take it that Lord Halifax and

others who say we are fighting for Freedom, mean Rea-
sonable Freedom under civilized conditions. Freedom is
divisible into (1) National Freedom, which is the sub-
ject dealt with in Chapter V, and (2) Persona] Freedom,
dealt with here.

Perhaps I have as good a right as any man to nail
the lie that we fought this war in defense of Persona] Free-
dom, since, for being actively anti-Jewish and for main-
taining, like Mr. Richard Stokes, M. P., that it was bet-
ter for everyone that the war would be brought to an
early close by a negotiated peace rather than that it
should be allowed to drag on, I was incarcerated in Brix-
ton Prison three and one-quarter years (with a short in-
terval of a few weeks in a dirty Concentration Camp)
without being charged or tried for any offence, imaginary
or otherwise. I was jailed so that I might not divulge to
others the results of careful investigation into the men-
ace of the Jew. But more of this anon.

For the last ten years the economic policy of the
Government of this country has been mapped out for
them by an organization called Political and Economic
Planning, or P. E. P., for short. It was my paper THE
FASCIST which first (July, 1983) gave publicity to the
existence of this Jewish racket. Until then its existence

was a carefully preserved secret. Israel Moses Sieff* and
the first Lord Melchett, two wealthy Jews, were promi-
nent in P. E. P.’s activities. A number of Gentile politi-
cians were soon roped in. P. E. P. is identical with the
New Deal of the U. S. A.

Representative Louis T. McFadden, speaking in the
House of Representatives (U. S. A.), 3rd May 1934,
quoted Lord Melchett as saying, when asked by his fel-
low members of P. E. P. to show more activity in the or-
ganization:

“Let us go slowly for a while until we see how our
Plan carries out in America.”

The natural question is, “Whose plan?” The promi-
nence of Jewish influence in the New Deal and in its
English counterpart, P. E. P., leads inescapably to the
answer:

The Jewish Plan of International Economic Control
The policy of P. E. P. is nothing less than the Sovieti-
zation of this country (Britain; of course. The reader
knows of the New Deal parallel in America) by stealth.
Its whole trend is toward the dictatorship of Trusts and
Combines; towards regimentation and standardization;
and towards the elimnation of the smal] trader and dis-
tributor. Those who have suffered from P. E. P.’s activi-
ties recognize it as a Planning Against Freedom.

P. E. P. has brought into being a number of Market-

“Mr. Sieff’s influence is felt in the United States also. The New
York Times reports on June 17, 1943: Washington, June 16—A House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce sub-committee suggested today
that Israel Moses Sieff, British chain store executive and vice chair-
man of the Political and Economic Planning Organization, might be
impregnating the OPA with anti-American economic theories in his
$10 a day position as an OPA consultant. Mr. Sieff, hired in March,
1942, by former Administrator Leon Henderson, denied any such in-
fluence on OPA policies and regulations. Rep. Lyle H. Boren read
from the Congressional Record of June 8, 1934, statements issued
by the P. E. P., of which Mr. Sieff is vice chairman, former chair-
man and a financial contributor, maintaining that “readjustment
of the United States to modern conditions will only be possible
after transforming the Constitution” and that “even the question of
keeping or scrapping the Constitution is subsidiary to the main
issue: What type of society America is to adopt.”

ing Boards, the Electricity Grid, Import Duties Advisory
Committee, the London Passenger Transport Board, Town
and Country Planning Board, Committee on National
Housing, International Congress for Scientific Manage-
ment, Retail Trading Standard’s Association, Federated
Multiple Shop Proprietor’s Association, and many others.
None of these organizations is concerned with maintaining
Personal Freedom, but with curtailing it.

The Rt. Hon. Walter Elliott was a member of the P.
E. P. and Minister of Agriculture in 1936. In the words of
Sir Arnold Wilson, M. P.:

“Every step he (Elliot) has taken has penalized
the small farmer and the small retailer who finds him
his market. He is not planning for employment, or
for the increase in the number of those who may be-
come their own masters ... what he has done is to
increase the market-value of shares in every distribut-
ing organization handling agriculture produce—the
great aggregation of capital owned by anonymous share-
holders, and directed by able and ambitious men who
seek power for its own sake,”

Similar policies have been carried out in most de-
partments of our national economic life. The policy of
the Government, influenced by the Political Economic
Planning ideas of centralization, has not been concerned
with defence of Personal Freedom but with the increase
of Jewish Control] over economic life.

The economic policy of the Government, as an-
nounced in the White Paper of May 1944, indicates that
restrictions and control are to continue long after the War
is over. The object is not to promote freedom but to make
life possible under a continuance of the practice of usury.

As recently as June 1944 a Bill was being forced
through the Commons, against strong protests, to enable
the Minister for Agriculture to ruin a dairy farmer if he
thought that farmer was likely to transgress the law!

The spokesmen of the Government are fond of mak-

ing speeches and writing articles to convey the false idea
that Democracy (the sort represented by universal suf-
frage—the counting of heads regardless of contents, if
any) is synonymous with Freedom. Actually, Democracy
works out as the Dictatorship of Organized Money Power
and that is a Dictatorship of the Jew.

The public was induced to believe that they fought
for Freedom in this war. Are not the Allies, the British
Empire, the U. S. A. and France democracies? As though
modern democracy is any longer associated with Freedom.
Soviet Russia has done most of the fighting on our side
and China hangs on to our coat-tails. It is a grim joke
to pretend that our Soviet ally is a democracy and not
the dictatorship of a bandit controlled by the Jewish
Money Power, or that the “common people” are the rulers!
Neither Russia nor China has the faintest conception of
Democracy or Freedom as the West understands these
terms.

This Grand Alliance of Dictatorships and Democracies
begins to take a recognizable shape when all the humbug
about the association of Freedom with Democracy is cast
aside. Then it becomes clear that the Allied Powers are
the Jewish Powers fighting for Jewry, indifferent as to
whether they themselves are democracies or tyrannies and
quite unconcerned with the ideal of personal freedom.

It is not disputed that freedom has to be curtailed in
war-time. But there is this difference. In our past wars,
when we were not under full Jewish control as we are
now, individuals who disagreed with the supposed right-
eousness of their country’s cause were allowed to say so
publicly, so long as they did not actually interfere with the
war itself. History records the following instances among
many:

Pitt: who wrote and spoke against our cause in the
American War of Independence.

Charles James Fox: who did the same in the Napol-
eonic Wars.

John Bright: who did the same in the Crimean
War.

Lloyd George: who did the same in the Boer War.

Ramsay MacDonald: who did the same in the First
World War.

Herbert Morrison: who did the same (I shall quote
him elsewhere).

The Government which sent us to war with Germany
in 1939 adopted a different code. It knew that its cause
was so rotten that it would not be able to stand public
criticism, so it employed certain “Defense Regulations,”
notably that known as “Regulation 18b,” against those
men and women who knew too much about the real objects
of our belligerency and were not afraid to say out aloud
what they knew. These men and women were arrested
and without charge or trial of any kind, flung into prison
or camps and left there to rot for months and years.
(Tyler Kent, the American code clerk, was imprisoned
for five years under 18b.—Ed.)* It did not matter that
many of these people had served their country well in the
last war. Their patriotism and past sacrifices counted for
nothing. One Member of Parliament (Capt. A. H. M.
Ramsay——Ed.), who had been shot in the heart during the
last war but had miraculously recovered, was imprisoned
for over four years. British National Sentiment had caused
the erection of War Memorials all over the country to
men who had died from similar wounds. What mockery!
“Memorials”!

But nothing was remembered. We were dispatched
like sheep into a Second World War!

The Jewish Money Power, not National Sentiment,
governed the situation in 1939.

Freedom? Freedom was sacrificed to save the Jew
from criticism and exposure as the cause of the war.

Freedom of speech? No.

*The Case of Tyler Kent, by John Howland Snow,

But freedom to say or write except what the Govern-
ment called anti-semitism.

I was luckier than many. I had taken steps to avoid
arrest as soon as I knew the Government’s intentions re-
garding Freedom for the Jew-wise. When, human na-
ture being what it is, through carelessness which so often
betrays the successful fugitive, I was finally cornered and
taken, enough time had elapsed for the “18b” inmates of
prisons and camps to have secured passable conditions of
life, hard as they were, especially in prisons. I did not
have to endure the horrors of filth and solitary confine-
ment for months, which others, no less patriotic than
myself, had to undergo during the earlier part of their
persecution.

I will not divert the reader’s attention from the main
issue by describing the horrors of the Jewish Democratic
Ogpu in Britain. But I will say this: if any of my read-
ers have any lingering idea that Democracy means Re-
sponsibility, then they must admit responsibility for vile
outrages against patriotic but Jew-wise fellow Britons—
outrages of which the bestiality and sadism have not yet
been allowed to become public knowledge. The details
are well and truly described in IT MIGHT HAVE HAP-
PENED TO YOU, published by the Stickland Press, 104
George Street, Glasgow, C. 1 (Price 1/— plus 2d postage)
—and don’t forget it—it would have happened to you if,
in the eyes of the Jewish Power, you had seemed hostile
to it.

To cloak their object, the Government and its sub-
servient Press spread widely the idea that the people in-
terned under Regulation 18b were traitors or “Quislings”
who preferred to see the Germans conquer Britain be-
cause they liked Germans better than Britons. The truth
was that these men and women only wanted the War
(which they knew to be Jewish) to be brought to a close
by negotiation and the Jewish menace tackled vigorously
by the British people themselves. They would no more
relish the interference of Germany in the matter than

16
that of any other foreign country.

Not only were Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, and the
Bill of Rights abandoned in the Jewish cause, but all
Courts of Justice were used to deny to 18b litigants the
very justice they were supposed to dispense. In the high-
est Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, decisions were
made and judgments given which an honest dissentient
Judge compared with those heard by Alice in the White
Queen’s Court in THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS. To
prevent 18b sufferers from obtaining relief, the House of
Lords Judges decided that the words “If a man has” could
be construed to mean “If a man thinks he has’! This
ridiculous finding registers a low-water mark in the de-
terioration of “British Justice.” It was only possible be-
cause of the desire to make “legal” the unconstitutional
methods by which anti-Jewish patriots could be impris-
oned for no offense. It is no accident that the case was
taken to the House of Lords by a Jew. So if you are
ever charged with a murder, all you have to do to estab-
lish an alibi is to swear that you think you were in Tim-
buctoo at the time of the crime, which, according to these
precious Lords of Appeal, will count as evidence in your
favour! Two, at least, of the four Lords of Appeal who
gave the majority verdict have close family Jewish con-
nections. How many were Freemasons, I do not know,

Therefore the Government has never concerned with
any concept of freedom at all and the number of mem-
bers of Parliament who even took the trouble to raise
their voices in protest against “18b” was distressingly
small. In fact, many of them, perfectly aware that fellow-
countrymen were imprisoned for their political opinions
without charge or trial, wrote or spoke as though no such
thing existed as “18b.” For example, Mr. A. V. Alexan-
der, First Lord of the Admirality, said on 28th March
1943, “In the British Isles, in the Dominion, in the United
States, no man need fear for his politics.” At that time,
18b or some similar regulation, was at work in all the
countries named by Mr. Alexander, to suppress the one
truth that the War was Jewish.

As a result of the War East Central Europe has been
bolshevized. What this means is described by Kerensky
in the New Leader, 16th October 1945: “It seems to be
a general rule that the Communist dictatorship reduces
to the position of hard labor convicts something between
one-third and one-sixth of the population of any country
in which it is installed . . . 200,000 of the ‘class enemy’
were deported from Lithuania after the Kremlin’s libera-
tion of that small country.” King Peter of Jugoslavia said
on 8th August 1945, “In my country there exists on a full
scale the dictatorship of the Tito regime. Every trace of
law has been wiped out from the State organization.”

It is, therefore, clear that Freedom was not the ideal
for which the Allies fought this war.

Chapter III

“WE ARE FIGHTING FOR PEACE.”

Lord Halifax.

Well, we heard that one before. The last war was
to be a War to end Wars.

If we are fighting for peace, why declare war?

The nonsensical statement which heads this Chapter
is the typical humbug of the typical ‘democratic states-
man.” It is without meaning, self-contradictory and mer-
its no argument.

Chapter IV

“WE ARE MEETING A CHALLENGE TO OUR OWN
SECURITY”

Lord Halifax

Coupled with this argument is the idea expressed by
the words: “We had to stop Hitler!” an idea more widely
believed in than any other of the false reasons upheld as
causes of the War. The supposed necessity for action
to equalize the Balance of Power in Europe is another
facet of the self-defence theory.

Hitler and his Germany were getting so strong that
we could not afford to let him get any stronger—we must
fight to stop them. That was the argument. Those who
upheld it as the correct one must show that Britain was
threatened by Germany’s new strength and by the in-
crease of that strength which would result from her over-
powering attack on Poland.

Talkative “statesmen” have unconsciously knocked
the bottom out of this argument. Mr. Joseph E. Davies,
United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1936
to 1938 and to Belgium in 1939, is one of these. He is
entitled to be regarded as intelligent because he foresaw
what so many did not—the potential strength of the Soviet
Armies. He also realized the military strength of the
Nazis. But he gave the game completely away in report-
ing to Acting Secretary of State, the Hon. Sumner Welles,
in a letter dated 22nd August 1939 in which he wrote:

“It was perfectly clear that if Europe were to
have peace, it would have to be a Fascist peace im-
posed by the dictators unless England and France creat-
ed a countervailing East-and-West Axis by the inclusion
of the Soviets, and established a balance of power
which would keep peace through an equilibrium of
forces ... The peace of Europe, if maintained, is in im-

minent danger of being a peace imposed by the dicta-
tors, under which all the small countries will speedily
rush to get under the shield of the German aegis...”

Here Mr. Davies admits, and officially advises his
Chief, that PEACE WAS POSSIBLE. The conditions of
that peace was that Continental Europe would be led by
Hitler’s Germany. It is therefore admitted that what is
know as the “military menace of the Nazis” need not re-
sult in war.

Obviously, therefore, when Britain went to war
“about Poland,” it was not because she was threatened
herself, but because the power behind the Government
wanted at all costs to prevent Hitler’s Germany from lead-
ing Continental Europe.

Lord Croft, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the War
Office, speaking at the Constitutional Club on 28th Oc-
tober 1942 said:

“We can claim that in an imperfect world, our
faith and actions are less materialistic than in most
countries, for we alone went into this conflict without
being attacked; we of the British Empire drew the sword
for the right of small nations to live.”

No question here of danger to Britain. Lord Croft re-
joices in the idea that we went to war “to save others”!

Sir Walter Elliot (M. P.) announced at the Albert Hall
at the end of October, 1942, that he “considered that the
atrocities of the Nazis were, more than any other single
factor, the cause of Great Britain going to war” (reported
in London Jewish Chronicle, 6th November 1942). This
Privy Counsellor gave no impression of our having been
threatened by Germany.

We must refer again to Joseph E. Davies for the con-
crete proof that Britain was not the German objective. He
disclosed on 20th January 1943 that the Germans in 1940
offered to retire Hitler if by so doing they could make
peace with Britain. The condition attached to this offer

was that Germany should be allowed to maintain its domi-
nant position in Europe. Mr. Davies made this disclosure
at a Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles, says the (London)
Times of 22nd January 1943.

It is plain that Britain was never threatened. There-
fore, in assessing the degree of aggression of which the
various warring States are guilty, the most flagrant is
surely Britain’s. She could not bear to see another State
getting stronger!

And they tell us we went to war to prevent aggres-
sion! No wonder people called this war “phoney.”

Chapter V

“We are defending the rights of all Nations to live
their own lives” and “fighting against the substitution of
brute force for Law as the arbiter between Nations.”

Lord Halifax.

Our actions and those of our Allies during the War
indicate that no nation will be allowed to live its own
life if that life, in the way the nation concerned wants to
live it, either (1) endangers our vital interests, or (2) ex-
cites the greed of our American and Soviet Allies. In com-
posing the above statement of the case as I see it, I have
given Britain credit for a less aggressive attitude towards
small nations than the Allies seem to me to have shown.

Let us examine our own actions.

As soon as it seemed advisable from the standpoint
of our own safety, we took over Iceland as a temporary
measure against the will of the Icelandic people who were
independent under the Kingship of the King of Denmark.
The people of Iceland did not want to be dragged into the
arena of war. Their actions toward the occupying troops,
both British and American, testified to that.

It will be said that we went into Iceland to get there
before the Germans. That makes no difference to the fal-
sity of the argument that we are fighting to defend the
right of Iceland to live its own life in its own way. The
Icelanders did not want us and they showed it in their be-
havior towards the invaders.

Senator Chandler of Kentucky, speaking on “a course
of national action which would have the support of cer-
tain elements in the United States which have great power”
(in the opinion of the ‘Times’ correspondent) advocated
that the U. S. A. should keep the strategic bases “so pain-
fully acquired” in Iceland and the French-owned New

23
Caledonia.’ (London Times, 8th October 1943.)

On August 25th, 1941, Britain in concert with Soviet
Russia invaded Iran (Persia) against native resistance
which collapsed on 9th September. The Shah, as a re-
sult, was forced to abdicate within a week. In this case,
not only did we allow Bolshevism to overrun Persia, but
we forced its ruler off his throne because we didn’t like
him. We cared nothing for the idea of letting the Per-
sians live their own lives. It is doubtful now whether they
will ever again have a chance to live any other life than
a Bolshevik one.

The Portuguese press has been very outspoken in sar-
castic criticism of all this talk about the rights of small
nations. The small nations, it seemed, were becoming
more and more docile satellites and victims of the Great
Powers. The paper ‘Seculo’ said the Atlantic Charter has
been smothered by Moscow. ‘Vox’ protested against eco-
nomic restrictions which were forced upon neutrals in
defiance of their rights to sell their goods as they wished
(that is: to live their own lives). It criticized the threats
made in the United States press against Argentina and
suggested that the New York press assumed the Atlantic
Charter was obsolete. The only bright spot, it said, is in
the fact that all this violence against smal] nations is not
backed up by actual bombardment!

Mr. Summer Welles, Under-Secretary of State of the
United States in September 1941, has revealed that Brit-
ain was then planning to invade and occupy the Canary
Islands at the risk of war with Spain.’ It is also known
that President Roosevelt ordered Admiral Stark to pre-
pare a force to seize the Azores from Portugal, but the
order was cancelled.

Mr. Duff Cooper, one our three leading war-mongers,
was quite unconscious of any desire to allow small na-
tions to “live their own lives.” Writing in the ‘Daily Mail’
of 12th April 1940 he declared:

“We must not ask questions as to what these small

powers want, nor listen to explanations of what they are
prepared to do. Having made plain to them that it is
their freedom and independence that are at stake, we
must tell them frankly what we demand, what part each
of them has got to play in the alliance that is to destroy
the German menace. If one or the other of them shows
signs of hesitation, we must act so as to insure that such
hesitations will be immediately overcome. It is time
similar measures were taken with regard to Holland and
Belgium.”

Be it remembered that Mr. Duff Cooper was a Privy
Counsellor! He was not worrying about small nations liv-
ing their own lives, but coercing them to do what he want-
ed them to do so that they might emerge Democratic and
Jewish. And Mr. Duff Cooper has lately been chosen to
be our Ambassador at Paris!

The Allies forced Spain in 1944 to curtail her trade in
wolfram with Germany and to take action hostile to Ger-
man interests. This was done by starving Spain of petrol.

Portugal was “induced” to allow the Allies to use
the Azores as a flying bas by similar measures.

The Earl of Selbourne, Minister for Economic War-
fare, in the House of Lords on 3rd May 1944 voiced the dis-
torted view of his government on neutrality thus:

“There was a heavy responsibility on all neutral
Governments who valued independence and liberty to
see that no act of theirs should assist those evil forces
whose triumph would obliterate liberty from the world.”

This dictim, of course, assumes that all neutrals think
the same about Germany (and Russia!) as Lord Selborne
does. But it happens that Spain, Portugal, and Argentina
took an opposite view to that of Lord Selbourne. They
prefer Germany to the Jewish Money Power. When one
recalls how Persia was treated by the Allies, Lord Sel-
bourne’s speech seems disgusting enough.

Eire has had her experiences too. Treated with ex-
traordinary and suicidal leniency long before the war

when the game was to weaken Britain by depriving her
of the Naval Bases on the West Coast, she must have been
surprised to receive a demand from the United States to
get rid of the representatives of Germany whom Ireland,
as a neutral, allowed to function in Dublin. Surely this
demand was an interference of considerable magnitude
with Hire’s “living her own life,” seeing that it would,
had she not rebuffed the proposal, have converted her from
a neutral into an enemy of Germany.

The United States, by a formal statement of President
Roosevelt,* had also condemned the suppression of Jew-
ish newspapers in the Argentine. This is another example
of bullying pressure upon a neutral state.

And what of our ally, Soviet Russia?

When her interests were at stake, she invaded Po-
land and kept its Eastern half as long as she could until
the Germans pushed her out of it. Then, when Russia in
her turn pushed the Germans back into Poland, she al-
lowed her spokesmen to announce that she regarded the
territory she took in September, 1939, as her own! On
the 8rd of August, 1939, Russia ‘incorporated Lithuania
into the Soviet Union. Two days later, Latvia and on the
next day Esthonia. All this before we adopted her as our
“glorious ally.” Thus, we knew perfectly well that this
ally was quite indifferent to the supposed right of weak na-
tions “to live their own lives.” The three states were al-
lowed to disappear with hardly a murmur.

When Russia reoccupied Lithuania, Latvia and Es-
thonia later in the war, her allies, who are supposed to
have gone to war to preserve the independence and lib-
erties of small nations, maintained an ominous silence.

*The Washington, D. C., Star published (February 29th, 1936) a
genealogy of President Roosevelt's family prepared by the Carnegie
Institute of Washington, D. C. The Jewish descent of the first Roose-
velts who emigrated from Holland to America is indicated.

“Roosevelt had a tinge of Jewish blood in him, for the first Roose-
velt who came to New Amsterdam in 1649 married a Miss Jeanette
Samuel.” (Rabbi Louis G. Reynolds writing in the California Jew-
ish Voice, April 20, 1945.)

They affected complete indifference about the fate which
befell them!

On 30th November 1939 Soviet Russia had attacked
Finland. In 1941 the Soviets became our Ally, but not
for the purpose of “defending the rights of small nations
to live their own lives.”

Can anyone, except an Archbishop, really believe that
there has been a sudden change of heart in Russia which
will lead her to tolerate the independent existence of her
weak neighbors? If anyone does, let him read what the
owner of that grand old Russian name Yerusalemnsky
wrote in the ‘Red Star’ early in 1944. Professor Yerusalem-
sky, referring to a proposal which had been voiced that the
smaller Powers should confer together to protect their own
interests, stated:

“How can one imagine Czechoslovakia, the victim
of Hungary, and Yugoslavia, the victim of Bulgaria,
meeting for such a purpose? Only the great demo-
cratic powers, war has shown, can form a stronghold
against aggression; and only they can make peace
secure.”

Unquestionably this Jewish professor speaks for the
Jewish influenced Soviet regime.

A speech of Molotov at the Sixth Session of the U. S.
S. R. Supreme Soviet on 29th March 1940, when he was
Chairman of the Council of Peoples’ Commissars for For-
eign Affairs, shows conclusively that this responsible offi-
cial did not believe in the British talk about the “rights of
small nations.” He declared:

“Germany had become a dangerous competitor for
the principal Imperialistic Powers of Europe, Great Brit-
ain and France. They therefore declared war on Ger-
many under the pretext of fulfilling their obligations
to Poland. It is now clearer than ever how far the real
aims of the Governments of these Powers are from the
purpose of defending disintegrated Poland or Czecho-
slovakia. This is shown if only by the fact that the Gov-

ernments of Great Britain and France have proclaimed
that their aim in this War is to smash and dismember
Germany, although this is still being concealed from the
mass of the people under cover of slogans of defending
‘democratic’ countries and the ‘rights of small nations.’ ”
(Moscow News, 1st April 1940)

It is known further that the Peace Treaties to be
forced upon the vanquished enemies are to contain a clause
preventing discrimination and restrictions on racial
grounds, thus, interfering with any possibility of these na-
tions “living their own lives” (subsequently confirmed.
—Ed.).

Meanwhile, the United States will continue to live its

own life and discriminate, and rightly, against the Negro
in its midst.

Lastly, the San Francisco Conference decided that
Might is Right after all—the Big Powers would speak the
final word in international disputes.

So much for the idea of “substituting law for brute
force.”’

What the San Francisco Conference did was to legal-
ize brute-force.

Chapter VI

“We are fighting against the violation of the Sanctity
of Treaties and disregard of the Pledged Word.”
Lord Halifax

This “cause of the war” is no cause at all.

It assumes that Germany is the only country whose
rulers break Treaties. It leaves out of account the many
changes of circumstances in international politics which
make it impossible always to act according to Treaty when
the conditions under which the Treaty was made have
completely changed.

In no case affecting the collapse of Treaties involv-
ing Germany and Great Britain were Britain’s interests
vitally affected.

Britain was never elected as the International Police-
man of the World. But Britain was drafted as a Special
Constable by the Jewish Money Power to “stop Hitler.”

It must be remembered that Germany has always
held that the Versailles Treaty had been broken by Allied
Powers. Germany was disarmed in order to establish a
basis for general disarmament. But no parallel degree
of disarmament was adopted by the other Powers who
signed the Treaty. On this Hitler based much of his for-
eign policy. Germany, defenceless and ringed by power-
fully armed neighbors. What Government could remain
inactive in the face of such a provocative situation and jus-
tify itself before its people?

Britain has a better record than any other country in
the world for sticking to her treaties’ terms; but the fact
that she willingly allied herself with Russia proves that it
was not Breaking of Treaties that she regarded as justi-
fying war. Was not Soviet Russia expelled from the
League of Nations for breaking her obligations under the

Covenant by a treacherous and unprovoked attack on Fin-
land in 1989? Does not the London Times Review of the
Year 1940 declare that Russia tried to subdue Finland
“with savage disregard for the rules of war”?

As for the Pledged Word apart from Treaties, the less
the Allies preach of this, the better. In 1915, Sir Henry
MacMahon, the High Commissioner for Egypt (who was a
33rd degree Mason of the International Scottish Rite),
promised in the name of Britain that in return for Arab
assistance to the Allies, Great Britain would recognize and
support the independence of the Arabs in territories which
included Palestine. Two years later, our politicians traded
away Palestine to the Jews as the only possible means of
getting the United States into the First World War against
Germany. (See p. 77.) It would be hard to find a worse
case of treachery and breaking of the Pledge Word than
this. No doubt because it was perpetrated for the sake of
Jewry, it goes comparatively unnoticed. But the “treach-
ery and aggression” of Hitler—that is headlined by the
subservient press the world over.

Before leaving Munich on his peace mission in Sep-
tember, 1938, Neville Chamberlain signed with Hitler a
declaration pledging their two countries to seek peaceful
means of settlement of any future difference arising be-
tween them. Within a year, however, the British Gov-
ernment made its agreement with Poland whereby they
handed over to that country the initiative for making war
between Britain and Germany.

Our Declaration of War against Germany was not
made in righteous indignation against “treachery” or “‘vio-
lation of the Sanctity of Treaties and disregard of the
Pledged Word.” We went to war with Germany with-
out clean hands ourselves. Later we accepted as Allies
the breakers of treaties, glad that they should pull us
out of the mess into which we had allowed our politicians
to plunge us. We finished by tearing up our treaty with
Poland and abandoning her to the Bolsheviks.

Chapter VII

“We are fighting today for the preservation of Chris-
tian Principles.”

A Leading Article, London Times, 17th February 1940

So have said many public men of the Allied Nations.

The lie is obvious enough. China is not Christian and
does not want to be. Professor Chau, who held the post,
in Australia, of Director of Information for the Chinese
Ministry, reminded us of this in 1944. The press reports
indicate that he made it clear that he distrusted the West
which, he said, came to the East “with a gun in one hand
and a Bible in the other.”

Millions of Mohamedans are involved in the results
of this war and thousands of them are fighting in it. Some
Hindus are in it, too. None of the people care a fig for
“Christian Principles.”

But again, it is our Ally, Soviet Russia that affords
us the easiest way of nailing this impudent lie. Not only
is Soviet Russia non-Christian, but it is so hostile to it
that a special Government Department has been main-
tained, staffed for the most part with Jews, for anti-God
propaganda. In 1980, the Church of England officially
denounced the persecution of Christians in Russia. The
Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Lang) declared:

“... it was almost unparalleled in the pitiful his-
tory of religious persecution” and that “the persecution
has been accompanied by popular blasphemies and ob-
scenities.”’

Lately, the easy consciences of priests and others
have been satisfied by another pronouncement of the same
Archbishop. He conveniently discovered that:

“, .. The Soviet Government had abandoned some

of the mistakes of its earlier regime’ and that “criti-
cisms of the past were now irrelevant in view of the
issues at stake,” and “there were some features in Rus-
sian Communism which were compatible with the Chris-
tian spirit.” (House of Lords, 23rd October 1941.)

In view of the above it must be recalled that the Lon-
don Jewish Chronicle announced that (4th April, 1919):

“|. . there is much in the fact of Bolshevism it-
self, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the
fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are
consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism.”

It cannot to often be repeated that in Russia there is
no Communism and there never has been any. They have
a State of Capitalism run by Jews. Communism is the idea
by which the ignorant masses are induced to accept Bol-
shevism. Communism remains an idea but it is never
practiced.

The present Archbishp of York (Dr. Garbett) visited
Russia in 1943—his tour comprised one city only. He
came back to report what he went out to report. There is
no need to stress it. He fell into line just as he did in
the matter of bombing civilians in war. But I doubt if any
of the clergy believed him.

Did the Pope do any better?

According to the Lisbon correspondent of the London
Times, 22nd April 1943:

“He is known to have communicated verbally to
the episcopate throughout the world that while Nazi
doctrines were wholly inimical to Christianity, that the
Communist,* evil as it was, could be regarded as in
some sense a corruption of part of the Christian ethic.”

Could anything be more pitiful than that?
Not one of the priests spoke the truth that Bolshe-
*The Vatican considers the spread of communism in Europe, as

the consequence of a Russian victory, to be less of a danger than
nazism.—Camille Cianfarra, N. Y. Times Magazine, Oct. 4, 1942.

vism is Jewish, hence its “blasphemies and obscenities.” It
would be interesting to know what influence Freemasonry
has had in these convenient changes of heart in high reli-
gious circles.

The last thing the people who made the war cared
about was Christianity. But as a weapon in propaganda
they spread the story that Christainity was being persecut-
ed in Germany. However, the Bishop of Gloucester visited
Germany in 1938 and in a half column letter to the London
Times, 14th July that year, he revealed the untruth of this
propaganda. He said:

“German pastors of different schools of thought
are (as far as he could judge—Ed.) free to carry on their
work, provided they do not use their pulpits for politi-
cal purposes. Pastor Neimoller is in confinement be-
cause he has stubbornly and determinedly defied this
law.”

Many times during the war, Christians have been
startled to hear of happenings which did not seem to tally
with Christian conduct of it, making every allowance for
the excesses which are liable to occur in any war as the
result of excitement and temporary loss of self-control. One
instance was the bombing of cities.

It was the “non-Christian” Hitler who proposed on
March 31, 1936, that incendiary bombs should be prohibit-
ed and that no bombs of any kind should be dropped on
open towns outside the range of medium-heavy artillery.
But it was the “Christian Powers” who rejected the pro-
posa]l.*

Another was the discovery of a pamphlet on Guerilla
Warfare published by the members of the Staff of the
(British) War Office (No. 1. Osterly Park), in which the
text recommended the questioning of prisoners to induce
them to give information before killing them.

Edgar L. Jones, an American, who served for over
a year with the British Eighth Army in North Africa, and

*Refer to Appendix II, page 112.

served as the Atlantic Monthly (Boston, Mass., U. S. A.)
correspondent in the Far Pacific, writes his impression of
the war in the February, 1946, number of the Atlantic
Monthly:

“We Americans have the dangerous tendency in
our international thinking to take a holier-than-thou atti-
tude toward other nations. We consider ourselves to
be more noble and decent than other peoples, and con-
sequently in a better position to decide what is right and
wrong in the world. What kind of war do civilians sup-
pose we fought, anyway? We shot prisoners in cold
blood, wiped out hospital, strafed lifeboats, killed or
mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy
wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead,
and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to
make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their
bones into letter openers. We topped off our satura-
tion bombing and burning of enemy civilians by drop-
ping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities,
thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass
slaughter.

“As victors we are privileged to try our defeated
opponents for their crimes against humanity; but we
should be realistic enough to appreciate that if we were
on trial for breaking international laws, we should be
found guilty on a dozen counts. We fought a dishonor-
able war, because morality had a low prirority in bat-
tle. ...

“Not every American soldier, or even one per cent of
our troops, deliberately committed unwarranted artoci-
ties and the same might be said for the Germans and
Japanese. The exigencies of war necessitated many so-
called crimes, and the bulk of the rest could be blamed
on the mental distortion which war produced. But we
publicized every inhuman act of our opponents and cen-
sored any recognition of our own moral frailty in mo-
ments of desperation.

“I have asked fighting men, for instance, why they

—or actually, why we — regulated flame-throwers in
such a way that enemy soldiers were set afire, to die
slowly and painfully, rather than be killed outright with
a full blast of burning oil. Was it because they hated
the enemy so thoroughly? The answer was invariably,
‘No, we don’t hate those poor bastards particularly; we
just hate the whole goddam mess and have to take it out
on somebody.’ Possibly for the same reason, we muti-
lated the bodies of enemy dead, cutting off their ears
and kicking out their gold teeth for souvenirs, and
buried them with their testicles in their mouths, but
such flagrant violations of all moral codes reach into
still unexplored realms of battle psychology.” (One
War Is Enough.)

Edgar Jones is not alone in telling how this war “for
the preservation of Christian Principles” was fought.
Frank Coniff, of the New York Journal-American, writes
in his column, East Side, West Side, of a conversation
with Holbrook Bradley, another correspondent who “took
off” in a tank, who

“told me it was a common custom to solve the
prisoner problem by the most direct means.

“The tankers, sheathed in their iron horses, were
unable to shag PWs back to the rear cages. They had
to do something with them. So they did.

“They machine-gunned them to death. And made
no apology for it.

“Combat veterans aware of the real situation know
I am only scraping the surfaces. Rumors were always
rife of mass liquidations of German PWs, especially by
our tankers.” (23rd May 1946.)

Then there is the message of the U. S. A. General
Mark Clark to the Fifth Army on 12th February 1944 in
which he said he welcomed the enemy’s assaults:

“o

... for it gives you additional opportunities to
kill your hated enemy in large numbers. It is an open
season in Anzio beachhead and there is no limit to the

35
number of Germans you can kill.”

With what disgust must British and American offi-
cers and soldiers have received this talk about “the hated
enemy.”

Dr. Alington, Bishop of Durham, in his book The LAST
CRUSADE, asks himself:

“What, for a Christian, are the conditions of a
righteous war?” and gives the answer,

“One from which hate is as far as possible ban-
ished.’

Of the British press, it was the Sunday papers
which were the chief hate propagandists. Perhaps my
readers may recollect the Sunday Chronicle’s article of 12th
October 1941 by W. J. Brittain: “If Huns Came to Brit-
ain” or the article in the Sunday Express of 29th August
1943 headed “This is Your Good, Kind German.” It was
so full of hate that the author remained anonymous.

Actually this war has done more harm to Christian-
ity than anything its virulent enemies could possibly have
devised against it. People are not going to forget the
bombings and other horrors (including 18b) and the atti-
tude of high dignitaries of the Churches towards them.
Nor will they forget the phosphorous grenades used by the
U.S. A. troops and the flame-throwers. Presumably Chris-
tians sanctioned them.

The following sentences are quoted from the Ameri-
can Magazine Life:

“The shower of molten burning particles that
sprays from a phosphorous shell sears its victims with
agonizing burns. Used against pill-boxes the flame not
only burns occupants but also suffocates them.” (19th
June 1944.)

Not a word from the Archbishops about that!

It was not Christianity we fought for, but Judaism
and Jewish revenge.

Chapter VIII

“We are fighting as our fathers fought to uphold the

doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 6th January 1942

These words were spoken by the President of the
United States in a message to Congress. He continued:

“.. We must be particularly vigilant against racial
discrimination in any of its ugly forms.”

If all men are equal in the sight of God, it would seem
to be of little use for man here below to fight about it.
Any decision about it will certainly be settled over his
head.

But not all men think, as President Roosevelt would
like them to think, that God regards men so. Anyhow
with the senses God has provided him, sight, smell, hear-
ing, touch, and taste, Ordinary Man certainly does not
believe that all men are equal. President Roosevelt’s fel-
low-countrymen don’t for they discriminate against the Ne-
gro in their midst.

In June, 1944, in Ohio, a strike took place holding up
12,000 men on aeroplane construction because seven Ne-
groes had been employed on work usually done by white
men. The Southern States prohibit intermarriage between
white and black, and enforce separate travel accommoda-
tions.

We British also, and in my opinion rightly, discrimi-
nate between ourselves and the coloured population of the
Empire. In 8. W. Africa, a proclamation, No. 19 of the
18th July 1934, makes extra-marital sexual intercourse be-
tween Europeans and Africans punishable with five years
penal servitude or expulsion from the country. Col. D.
Reitz, High Commissioner for the Union of South Africa,

spoke at the London Guildhall on the 18th March 1944
insisting on the actual inequality of white and black in
his country. Before the white man came to South Africa,
he said, it lay uninhabited save for a few wandering Hot-
tentots and Bushmen. The cities, ports, railways, roads
and bridges and the civilization of South Africa were the
White Man’s creation. Every European would agree, he
said, that to confer complex civil rights upon a people who,
as yet, were incapable of exercising them, would spell dis-
aster. (Col. Reitz was too close to his subject to have ob-
served that disaster has come to England itself from that
very cause!)

The Jews themselves don’t believe in Human Equal-
ity, any more than they believe in Communism. Both are
ideas which they have successfully used in the degrada-
tion of the White Man’s civilization. Jews have a number
of uncomplimentary words expressing the inferiority of the
Gentiles among whom they live. One such word is Goyim,
meaning cattle. That this word is in actual use we quote
from the Jewish Post, 7th December 1945, from the col-
umn—The Yiddish Press by Rabbi Benjamin Schultz:

“It’s about time, comments the DAY’S S. Nigor, to
stop paying the expenses of goyim from Washington,
because they express sympathy with the Jews. They
come and read speeches at banquets, these big-shots.
‘Read’—because we have written the speeches for
them. But why waste more time and money? Now we
want action. Words are cheap.”

There can be no greater absurdity and no greater
disservice to humanity in general than to insist that all
men are equal. The idea is particularly favored by peo-
ple with an inferiority complex. This can be traced to ac-
tual racial inferiority. It plays a double role; first, in-
ducing people to tolerate doctrines dangerous to their so-
ciety; and second, to permit finally their society to be dom-
inated by these doctrines.

In a discussion, MARXISM AND JUDAISM by Sal-

luste, the Jewish origin of the doctrine of equality is set
forth in detail in a long quotation from ANTI-SEMITISM,
ITS HISTORY AND CAUSES (Paris, Leon Chailley, 1894),
by Bernard Lazare, great Israelite scholar of high moral
probity :

“. .. The Jews believed not only that Justice, Lib-
erty and Equality could become sovereign on this earth,
but they held themselves (as) singled out especially to
work for such sovereignty. All desires, all the hopes
that these ideas gave birth to, ended by crystallizing
around one central idea: that of the times of the Mes-
siahs, of the coming of the Messiah.”

The Chosen People idea, a people especially singled
out by God, gives the Jews a stronger interest than any
other people in establishing racial tolerance in a Christian
society while at the same time maintaining their own ra-
cial exclusiveness.

Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence
wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal. ...” On such a shaky foundation
arose the United States of America with Negro slavery
in full blast in the South.

Perhaps the subject can best be disposed of by
quoting at some length the thoughts of a great English
Divine on the subjects of Race and Inequality. Dr. Arnold
Ruby wrote as follows on 22nd March 1885 to the Arch-
bishop of Dublin:

“With regard to such races as have been found in
a savage state, if it be admitted that all mankind are
originally one race, then I should say they must have de-
generated; but if the physiological question be not set-
tled yet, and that there is any reason to suppose that
the New Hollander and the Greek never had one com-
mon ancestor, then you would have races of mankind
divided into those improvable by themselves, and those
improvable by others.’

In a letter to W. W. Hull, dated 27th April 1836,

89
Dr. Arnold wrote:

“The Jews are strangers in England and have no
more claim to legislate for it than a lodger has to share
with the landlord in the management of his house. If
we had brought them here by violence, and then kept
them in an inferior condition, they would have had just
cause for complaint; though even then I think we might

. remove them to a land where they might live by
themselves independent; for England is a land of Eng-
lishmen, not of Jews.” (Page 402.)

These wise words, written before the works of Dar-
win, deserve to be better known. They have been taken
from Dean Stanley’s LIFE OF ARNOLD.

James Theophile Meek, noted archeologist, has some-
thing to say about the origin of the Jews which may account
for their feeling of inferiority:

“|. . Wherever used ‘Habiru’ is a term of reproach,
and just so its equivalent in Hebrew, ibri is, a degrading,
derogatory appellation, a mark of inferiority, denot-
ing an alien, a barbarian, a Bedouin, a mock name that
ridiculed its bearers’’’ (Hebrew Origins, page 9.)*

Even the London Times of 3rd July 1943 has been
driven by the absurdity of the position to print:

“Frankly to recognize this divine law of inequali-
ties seems specially important in these days.”

Yes, but a littled belated if, as Roosevelt says, we
are in a World War to uphold the very opposite!

In his article Marxism and Judaism, Salluste makes
a masterful analysis of the cult of equality beginning with
Moses Mendelssohn, through Leopold Zunz, Heinrich
Heine to Karl Marx, all adherents of what he has termed
neo-Messianism. The path leads through Liberalism, So-
cialism, the negation of the Christian State, to atheistic Bol-
shevism inspired by Jewish neo-Messianic intellectuals, to
civil war and, we may add, finally to World War.

*American Journal of Semitic Languages, XLIX, page 298.

Chapter IX

“WE ARE FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY”

A common catch phrase.

I ask my readers to look upon this proposition, that
we are fighting for Democracy, on its own merits apart
from questions of aggression, etc.

The Democracy which was established in units of
the British Empire and in France, Belgium and the U.S. A.,
is the represented by the counting of heads. The major-
ity is then able to put what are called its “representatives”
in power. This is supposed to result in a government of
the People, by the People, and for the People. But it is
no such thing. The people lose all control over its ‘“‘repre-
sentatives” as soon as the latter come into office, for then
they do what they like with the People. They can send
them to War and Death, they can Ally them with Bolshe-
viks, they can offer (as Churchill, did, like an hysterical
old woman) common citizenship with Nations of entirely
different temperament and outlook on life. They can im-
prison them for years without charge or trial, as they did
to me, and might have done to you. If the reader has left
a vestige of the idea that Democracy means the responsi-
bility of the people for the acts of the Executive. perhaps
he will send me a cheque for his share in the responsibility
for this disgusting outrage.

No, Democracy is a fraud!

By means of Democracy, however, the people can, for
the most part, be taught to believe what they are told. If
the people reads its newspapers and magazines, listen to
its wireless (radio), gapes at its cinemas, absorbs the
speeches of its politicians, believing all the time that these
are all bonafide and British, when actually they are in-
fluenced by the alien ideas, largely masonic and Jewish.
The People constantly exposed to these influences will not

think like Britons but like Jews, and now, for the most
part, do. Karl Marx, great Jewish logician and penetrat-
ing thinker that he was, wrote in what is known as “Requi-
sitore a la Drumont”:

a“
.

. and the practical Jewish spirit has become the
spirit in practice of the Christian people. The Jews have
been emancipated in (precise) measure as the Chris-
tians have become Jews.” (1844.)

If there is any independent thought left among the
People there are drugs, particularly Spirits and Tobacco,
to lull them into bovine complacency and finally the doc-
trines of freemasonry to keep a more definite hold upon
them.

This is why these alien influences are so keen to get
the people to believe that Democracy means Freedom.
Given the Universal Vote, or something near it, these alien
influences can control all the machines that manufacture
what is called “public opinion.” This control depends ulti-
mately on the use of overwhelming Money Power. Quoting
Karl Marx from the first part of the paragraph quoted
above.

“The Jew has been emancipated, not only by mak-
ing himself master of the financial market and because,
thanks to him and by him, gold has become a world
power...”

It is not that these influences control Conservatism,
or that they control Liberalism or “Labour,” nor even that
they control Communism, but through the effects of Uni-
versal Suffrage, they can get control over the whole lot.
They then mold the frame-work of all these political parties
to accomplish their objects.

Rabbi I. I. Mattuck understands this clearly. He
wrote in the London Chronicle, 14th April 1944:

“The fate of the Jews is bound up with Democ-
racy ... There is an irreconcilable conflict between anti-
semitism and Democracy . .. Anti-semitism must be de-

’

stroyed if Democracy is to prevail .. ?
If this means anything, it means that the system of
universal suffrage known as Democracy must be made
secure for the Jew to maintain his present position. But
the Jews, too, give expression to opinions that they be-
lieve in the idea of government by an elite, so long as
they are the elite. In the Sermon of the Week in the Lon-
don Jewish Chronicle, 1st January 1943, they show that
they know, as well as anybody else, that,

“All great movements spring from the few and
nearly every ideal degenerates with popularity. Every
new truth, each new representation of an old truth, as
soon as it becomes the property of the many for whom
it is intended, loses its inspiring power and becomes a
commonplace. For the standards of the many must al-
ways be low ones, and it is rarely the best or noblest
ideas that can be accepted by the majority.”

The idea of Democracy does not receive much support
here. But if Democracy can be used to get others to
fight your battles for you to maintain your position in
a body politic, by all means use it to advantage. To the
great detriment of the countries in which he lives, this,
the Jew has managed to do.

It is worthwhile here to quote some thoughts on De-
mocracy by famous men:

Lord Macauley’s letter, dated May 23, 1857, to the
Hon. H. S. Randall, New York City, expresses his ideas
about the future of the United States under the demo-
cratic system:

“I am certain that I never in Parliament, in con-
versation, or even on the hustings—a place where it is
the fashion to court the populace ... uttered a word
indicating the opinion that the supreme authority in
the state ought to be instructed to (by) the majority
of citizens told by the head; in other words, by the
poorest and most ignorant of society. I have long been
convinced that institutions purely democratic must
sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.”

(After a considerable discourse on how a hungry and
propertyless people will succeed in plundering the
United States by legislative means,* he continues)...
“There will be, I fear spoliation . . . when society has
entered on this downward progress, either civilization
or liberty perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will
seize the reins of Government with a strong hand or
vour Republic will be fearfully plundered and laid
waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the
Roman Empire was in the fifth; with this difference:
that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman
Empire came from without and your Huns and Vandals
will have been engendered within your country by your
own institutions.’’t

J. S. Mill—“It is not useful, but hurtful, that the
constitution of this country should declare ignorance
to be entitled to as much political power as knowledge.”

Goethe—“There is nothing more odious than a ma-
jority. It consists of a few powerful leaders, a cer-
tain number of accommodating scoundrels and subver-
vient weaklings, and a mass of men who trudge after
them without in the least knowing their own minds.”
(What an apt description of the present state of the
British Government.—A. L.)

Clemenceau—"Majority Government means gov-
ernment by inferior minds, and the slow rate of progres
is determined by the necessity to convince inferior
minds.”

Thomas Carlyle—‘“Historically - speaking, I be-
lieve there was no nation that could ever subsist on De-
mocracy.”

My readers may reflect that following the adoption
of universal suffrage in 1928 it only took eleven years
for Britain to be jockeyed into a war which resulted in
the United States becoming the greatest naval power in

*See MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.
tSee THE REVOLUTION WAS, by Garet Garrett.

44
the world.

Democracy was the means of rotting France before
the War.

Now let us look at our Allies. Is Russia a Democ-
racy? Is China a Democracy? With a contempt for
their audience that is scarcely without parallel, with cold
disregard for fact, and with shameless bare-faced effron-
tery, our “statemen” and journalists have been speaking
and writing of the Allied Nations as “the democracies”
for the last three years. They are not uninformed. They
know that they are perverting the facts when they call
Russia and China “democracies.” Why do they lie? This
I will show in the proper place.

How is it that Churchill did not himself protest
against this distortion of the facts by his followers, in
view of his own opinions on the nature of the Soviets?
In his broadcast on 20th January 1940 he had spoken
up for Finland (or for his friends’ Nicke] Mines there?)
in these words:

“Many illusions about Soviet Russia have been dis-
pelled in these weeks of fierce fighting in the Arctic
Circle. Everyone can see how Communism rots the soul
of a nation; how it makes it abject and hungry in peace
and proves it base and abominable in War... If the
light of freedom which burns so brightly in the frozen
North should finally be quenched, it might well herald
a return to the Dark Ages when every vestige of hu-
man progress during 2,000 years would be engulfed.”

Churchill wrote of Soviet Russia in his book, GREAT
CONTEMPORARIES:

“In Russia, we have a vast, dumb people dwelling
under the discipline of a conscripted army in war time;
a people suffering in years of peace the rigours and
privations of the worst campaigns; a people ruled by
terror, fanaticisms and the Secret Police. Here we have
a State whose subjects are so happy that they have to be
forbidden to quit its bounds under the direst penal-

ties; whose diplomatists and agents sent on foreign mis-
sions have often to leave their wives and children at
home as hostages to ensure their eventual return. Here
we have a system whose social achievements crowd
five or six people in a single room; whose wages hardly
compare in purchasing power with the British dole;
whose life is unsafe, where liberty is unknown; where
grace and culture are dying; and where armaments and
preparations for war are rife. Here is a land where God
is blasphemed, and man, plunged in this world’s misery,
is denied the hope of mercy on both sides of the grave
—his soul, in the striking protesting phrase of Robe-
spierre—‘no more than a genial breeze dying away in
the mouth of the tomb.’ Here we have a power ac-
tively and ceaselessly engaged in trying to overturn
existing civilizations by stealth and propaganda, and
when it dares, by bloody force. Here we have a state,
three millions of whose subjects are languishing in for-
eign exile, whose intellingencia have been methodically
destroyed; a State nearly half a million of whose citi-
zens, reduced to servitude for their political opinions,
are rotting and freezing through the Arctic night; toil-
ing to death in the forests, mines and quarries, many for
no more than indulging in that freedom of thought
which has gradually raised man above the beast. De-
cent good-hearted British men and women ought not
to be so airily detached from realities that they have no
word of honest indignation for such wantonly, callously
inflicted pain.”

Yes! Churchill said all that! Then whence came
this alliance with Russia? From Churchill? It would
not seem likely at first sight, would it? But consider this:
Churchill’s association with the men of international fi-
nance such as Mr. Bernard Baruch in the United States,
is a matter of public knowledge through various press
reportings. Mr. Churchill’s father was a Rothschild inti-
mate, as is Churchill himself. The Rothschilds opposed
Bolsevism, despite its Jewish inspiration, because through
it they lost their Baku Oil field. This led to an opposition

of interests between them and other Jewish interests, espe-
cially in the United States, who favored Bolshevism. The
appearance of Hitler’s National Socialist Government on
the scene brought about a union of interests for self-preser-
vation. In view of the known facts, does this not appear
to explain Churchill’s change of view?

The world democratic press did not take much no-
tice that the dismissal of Prime Minister Goga in Ro-
mania by King Carol was an act of dictatorship. It rather
applauded the dismissal of the King’s Minister elected by
popular vote who sought to curb the Jewish influence in
the affairs of his country. Perhaps Madame Lepescu, the
King’s Jewish friend, had some influence here.

Not many years ago Britain made a loan of sixteen
million pounds to the late Dictator of Turkey, Kame] Ata-
turk.

Salazar, Dictator of Portugal, and one of the wisest
statesmen in the world today, was Britain’s very good
friend.

Daladier had secured the right to make decree laws
in France.

President Roosevelt had sought similar powers in the
United States.

None of these people were disturbing to Britain or
its people.

But Hitler’s National Socialist Government which
brought greatly improved social welfare to the people of
Germany, according to Douglas Reed (see his DISGRACE
ABOUNDING), well that is something different. His
Government sought to limit the Jewish influence in the
affairs of his country (see Arthur Bryant’s UNFINISHED
VICTORY).

Well, we Britons simply can’t stand that, can we?

Which all goes to show that “We are fighting for
Democracy” is but a smokescreen to conceal the real rea-

47
son for war.

“A few powerful leaders” with “a number of accom-
modating scoundrels”!

The leaders of Britain know perfectly well that it is
not Democracy that we are fighting for, but for the
Power which battens upon it.

Chapter X

THE THEORY THAT HIGH FINANCE CAUSED THE
WAR

There is a school of though which believes that In-
ternational Finance with its preponderant Jewish inter-
est and the Monetary System under which most of the
world has suffered from mass unemployment was doomed
to be superseded by Hitler’s credit system based upon a
goods standard and international barter. This would dis-
place gold, the tool of the Internationalists.

I believe this myself.

But some go so far as to say that the war was brought
about so that, if Hitler could be defeated, the Gold Stand-
ard Monetary System, which is fraudulent, could be main-
tained to the benefit of Wall Street and other large Gold
Controllers.

I do not believe that.

It might be worth a war from the point of view of
Wall Street, but it would not be worth this war. This
war shows every trace of our having been dragged into
it blindfolded and uneprapared. Wall Street would not
have allowed that. Wall Street knows that if the Ger-
mans won the war, there would be no more Wall Street.

In my opinion there was more to it than the survival
of the fraudulent Gold Standard System. The necessities
of racial survival made it urgent for the Jews to act with-
out delay. Their considerable influence in Wall Street
together with other participants in the spoils of the fraud-
ulent system made it not too difficult to get the “Street”
to support a war which was represented as inevitable.

This is not the place to go into the intracacies of
monetary systems. The kernel of the problem is that

credit based upon gold is insufficient for the needs of
modern commerce. A short supply of money and credit
is best for the usurer or money-lender, since scarcity raises
the rate of interest borrowers must pay. Power to regu-
late the amount of money and credit available enables
the controllers of Gold to dominate world affairs, economi-
cally and politically. The creation of inextinguishable
national debts is part of the system of control and with
control goes domination. This system of economic and
financial bondage was doomed by the expansion of the
barter system developed by National Socialist Germany.
(For a more detailed explanation see the chapter, The
Peace We Lost in A PEOPLE’S RUNNYMEDE, by Rob-
ert Scrutton, Andrew Dakers, publisher.)

Chapter XI

THE OBJECT IS TO DESTROY FASCISM AND
HITLERISM

At last we approach facts.

Certainly we went to war with the object of de-
stroying Fascism and Hitlerism. But the people were not
allowed to know this till it was too late to withdraw, or
they would not have sanctioned it, had they had an op-
portunity to do so. It was not Hitler or a Fascist form of
Government that was objected to but that both opposed
the Jewish influence in their domestic affairs.

President Roosevelt, in a letter to the International
Labour Office Conference in 1944, said:

“The welfare of the world’s population and their
liberty are the first and ultimate concern of those dedi-
cated to root out from this earth every trace of Nazi
ideas and Nazi methods.”

The London Times’ leading article of 26th Septem-
ber 1989, said:

“We have gone to war with the single-minded de-
termination to rid Europe of a particular menace whose
presence is incompatable with the continuance of civil-
ized life, and it is the simplicity of this claim that re-
solves what the Duce feels to be inconsistency in our
discrimination between Hitler and his Russian accom-
plice. We believe that the Russian action, lawless and
treacherous as we must declare it to be, is a secondary
and subordinate consequence of the original crime.
The Soviet has not been a party to Hitler’s previous out-
rages and has not shown itself to be in essence an ag-
gressive power.”

The Duce was not the only man to see inconsistency
in the discrimination in favour of the Soviets, despite this
dead-lame explanation.

On plenty of other occasions, politicians have assured
us that we are fighting to destroy Fascism. But they do
not tell us why they deem it so necessary. There was a
time when it did not appear to be a necessity to Winston
Churchill. In his Great Contemporaries he wrote:

“Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face in
public business or on social terms have found a highly
competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an
agreeable manner, a disarming smile.”

Again in STEP BY STEP, Churchill wrote of Herr
Hitler:

“If our country were defeated, I hope we should
find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage
and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

But of Russia, Churchill said in 1920:

“The Soviet system is barbarism worse than the
Stone Age.”

In a broadcast on 20th January 1940 he said:

“Everyone can see how Communism rots the soul of
a nation...”

And later in the year on 1st April, he said:

“Communism is a deadly mental and moral dis-
ease.”

From this it is not understandable why Churchill
should be leading the British Empire in a war to destroy
National Socialism with the aid of Bolshevik Russia.

Of Italian Fascism, Churchill said in a speech on
11th November 1938:

“Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting
the subversive forces and rallying the masses of the
people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the
honour and stability of civilized society. Hereafter no
great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means

of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshe-
vism.”

As far back as 1926 the Financial News reported that
a Committee of British Residents in Florence announced:

“We wish to state most clearly and emphatically
that there exists here today nothing that can be justly
termed either tyranny or suppression of personal free-
dom as guaranteed by constitutional law in any civilized
land. We believe that Mussolini enjoys the enthusias-
tic support and admiration of the Italian people who
are contented, orderly and prosperous to a degree hith-
erto unknown in Italy, and probably without parallel
at the present time among other great European nations
still suffering from the war.”

Sympathetic readers will smile when they are re-
minded that in 1933 the Financial Times brought out a
special eight-page Supplement under the captain:

The Renaissance of Italy

Faseism’s Gift of Order and Progress

The solution of the mystery is that in those days Fas-
cism had not yet grappled with Jewish influences domi-
nating the nation’s affairs. Giuseppe Toeplitz, Polish
born Jew, had just retired from the management of the
Banca Commerciale Italiana, which a New York Times
dispatch from Milan on January 29, 1938 (the date of
Signor Toeplitz’s death) estimated controlled one-seventh
of all Italian industries.

We Fascists have noticed with amusement how our
own Government is forced by the pressure of necessity
to adopt many of the policies of Fascism. We may in-
stance the recognition of Agriculture as basic among the
industries; the necessity of ensuring that the Land is not
mis-used by those farming it and the corporative organi-
zation of certain industries and professions.

The International Labour Office issued a report in

April 1944 in which the activities of the German Labour
Front established by Hitler were recommended to be
“adapted for future use” after our victory. Facilities for
workmen’s travel, recreation and other sparetime activi-
ties, for vocational training and research on labour pro-
tection; the “Beauty of Work” service—“Kraft durch
Freude” (Strength through Joy) in the National Socialist
Labor Program—and the Labour Bank, “one of the chief
credit institutions ... of the whole of Europe”; “it should
also be the responsibility of the Labour Commissioners,”
the Report of I. L. O. further outlines, “to continue all
administrative services required for the administration of
labor and social legislation—employment services, social
insurance and the labour inspectorate.” The J. L. O.
Philadelphia Labor Charter actually purlions direct from
Fascism its notions of industrial organizations! “It insists,”
says the London Times of 13th May 1944, “on the employ-
ers’ right to combine freely, and declares also that if work-
ers and employers combine to run industry collectively,
there must be a third element—the Government—to co-
operate and see that the rest of the community is not ex-
ploited.” Similar proposals are found in the 1944 Report
on Reconstruction issued by the Grand Council of the
Trade Union Congress.

It was on these principles that the Fascist Corpora-
tive Organization of Industry was based! Then why
should we be so keen to destroy all this? There can be
but one plausible answer. National Socialism and Fas-
cism opposed the Jewish influence in the domestic af-
fairs of their respective countries. That we have ample
proof that National Socialism and Fascism were good
governments for the Germans and the Italians of their
respective countries, apparently, is of no consideration.
Is it that only Jewish interests matter the world over?

We may venture to doubt whether better Govern-
ment for “liberated” Italy than the Fascists one can be
achieved with the material at hand. Just consider this
London Times report of the 25th April 1944:

“As most members of the new Cabinet are Repub-

licans, a form of procedure was devised whereby Minis-
ters, before taking oath, signed a declaration stating that
they had accepted office with the purpose of serving
the best interests of the country, but without attaching
any permanent significance to the ceremony.”

It was from such “accommodating scoundrels” as this
that Fascism saved Italy for twenty years. At the time of
this writing, every so-called “liberated” country begins a
campaign of violence and outrage against its most active
anti-communist elements. The same conditions are at once
reproduced from which their Fascist or semi-Fascist Gov-
ernments of the past had saved them.

Chapter XII

UNPREPARED AND BLINDFOLDED

It is common knowledge that this country went to
war without being attacked. If some vita] national in-
terest had compelled Britain to start a war against Ger-
many, we should at least have waited until the most fa-
vorable moment before declaring it. The fact that we were
hurried into war unprepared and blindfolded is circum-
stantial evidence that we did not go into it to protect some
vital interest. Nations which are not under attack do not
start wars unless they are pretty well convinced that they
can win them.

When Churchill became Prime Minister, he said he
could promise us only “blood and tears.” As he had so
long been one of the most active politicians in favor of
“stopping Hitler,” the sense of responsibility he owed to
the nation should have prevented him from hurrying mat-
ters on before he had first made reasonably sure that we
had at least the best chance of victory. We can only con-
clude that someone forced him on from behind—someone
to whom this country’s welfare was a matter of no great
moment.

The Foreign Secretary admitted that we had got our-
selves into a mess without any clear notion of how to get
out of it, when he said on the 2nd November 1939:

“Unless we know the duration of the war and its
intensity, we can form no estimate of what will be the
state of Europe when victory is won.”

Mr. Oliver Lyttleton, Minister of Production, said at
Farmborough on 6th May 1944:

“It was surely a chastening thought that we were
now alive as a British Commonwealth and Empire more
by the mistakes which the enemy made in 1940 than
by any foresight or preparation which we had made
before that date.”

On the same day Lt. Genera] A. E. Nye, Vice Chief
of the Imperial General Staff, revealed at Coventry that

. . . those of us who had access to all the infor-
mation available, who knew the full extent of our un-
preparedness, were fully aware that it would take at
least two years from the outbreak of war before we
could organize, train and equip an army proportion-
ate to our needs, and we all knew that during those two
years we were bound to be involved in a series of dis-
asters.”

Then we may ask, why was not the Imperial General
Staff consulted before we committed ourselves to come
in when Poland called upon us? These three admissions
by responsible men prove that those who had been work-
ing so hard to bring us to war to “stop Hitler,” could not,
when they were doing so, see a year ahead. They were
blindfolded, or they would not (if they were patriots)
have acted as they did. Their objects therefore could not
have been connected in any way with the welfare of the
country.

Speaking in the House of Commons in 1941, the late
Col. Wedgewood, M. P., had to admit:

(Ki

. . If Russia surrendered, he doubted whether
our resolution would hold for long, so tempting would
be Hitler’s offers of peace.”

Mr. Eden queried:

“Where would this nation be if Russia were un-
able to hold the enemy?”

The answer to that query would be,

Exactly where he and his fellow-warmongers had
put it.

It is not that they did not know that they had no
chance without Russia. THEY DID KNOW. The dates
and quotations of the following statements prove it:

25th May 1939, Mr. Eden:

“If an effective resistance to aggression is to be

organized in Eastern Europe, Russia’s whole-hearted co-
operation is indispensable.” (Birmingham Post.)

22nd June 1939, Mr. Churchill:

“Without an alliance with Russia, no effective sta-
bility can be created or long maintained in Eastern
Europe.” (Manchester Guardian.)

8rd April 1939, Mr. Lloyd George:

“If we are going to help Poland without the help
of Russia, we are walking into a trap.” (Extract from
speech in House of Commons.)

They knew we depended upon the Soviets for possible
success, and they knew it months before war was de-
clared by Britain. Not merely did these politicians drag us
into it without the foggiest idea of how to “hang the
washing on the Siegfried Line,” but they cannot offer us
any hope even after the war is won.

Sir Kingsley Wood warned us, 2nd February 1943:

“A war of such unprecedented devastating and crip-
pling a character must mean that not only this coun-
try but the whole world would be much poorer and dis-
abled . . . We should live in a fools’ paradise if wish-
ful thinking led us to believe that this cruel war would
bring us in its train happier times and better days.”

Mr. Duff Cooper, 16th March 1948, said:

“We should do all we could to take away from
the programmes that are occasionally put before the
world those tremendous hopes of immediate improve-
ment. It is not likely that on the morrow of this war,
things are going to be better than they were before.
You cannot devote everything to the work of destruc-
tion and expect to find as a result a much better, finer
world built up.”

A “phoney war”?

In we went, unprepared and without hope of improv-
ing our position according to the politicians I have just

quoted. The people themselves were so puzzled as to
why it had to be that the politicians were obliged to keep
telling them what the purpose of the war was. And all
reasons given were different. We discuss ten of the rea-
sons in the first ten chapters.

But Hitler gave the true reason for the war in every
speech he made—International World Jewry.

The Ministry of Information was as uncertain as to
what we were committed as any other Department of the
Government. In December 1939 it published a pamphlet
called “Assurance of Victory,” in which it actually said:

“We do not have to defeat the Nazis on land, but
only to prevent them from defeating us. If we can suc-
ceed in doing that, we can rely on our strength in other
directions to bring them to their knees.”

How absurd in the light of subsequent events!

That Churchill was just as vague over the silly experi-
ment and its consequences, we saw when, without any Man-
date from “Democracy,” he offered defeated France an
Act of Union in which “France and Great Britain shall no
longer be two nations but one Franco-British Union”!

This irresponsible lunacy was turned down by France,
and is never now referred to in polite circles. It shows
only two plainly that British interests were secondary to
something else.

Then there was Japan. Britain was pledged bv
Churchill to come in “within the hour” if America and
Japan went to war. In other words, just as we allowed
Poland to decide when we were to go to war with Ger-
many, so we allowed the United States to involve us in
war with Japan. The run of disasters which followed the
outbreak, in which we lost Hong-Kong, Singapore, the Ma-
lay States and Burma, shows that no proper preparations
had been made for this tough proposition either. If we
had goine into this war against Japan for British inter-

59
ests, we would have managed it differently*

International World Jewry which thrust us forward
into the War was desperate and quite unconcerned with
the future of the British Nation.

*That the war was forced upon Japan and how is shown in
THE TRUTH ABOUT PEARL HARBOR and THE FINAL SECRET
OF PEARL HARBOR, by John T. Flynn (Strickland Press, Glasgow).

Chapter XII

HITLER ALWAYS KNEW HIS REAL ENEMY

Throughout the war, Hitler consistently reminded the
world who his real enemies were:

October, 1941: “Unfortunately, the nation whose
friendship I wanted most did not join in. Their respon-
sibility for that was not with the entire British nation.
There were a few who, in their stubborn hate and crazi-
ness had sabotaged every such attempt supported by
the world enemy—lInternational Jewry ... The plot of
the Democrats, Jews and Freemasons achieved the
plunging of Europe into war.”

November 1941: “England, inspired by Interna-
tional Jewry and the Soviet Union, also led by Jews.”

lst January, 1942: “The driving force behind
them (the Allies) is the Jewish plutocrats, who, for
thousands of years have always been the same eternal
enemy of human order and consequently of a real so-
cial justice ... The Jewish Anglo-Saxon financial con-
Spiracy does not fight for any kind of democracy.”

30th January 1942: “Mr. Churchill supported by a
small clique, has said that I want war. Behind him and
his clique stand the Jews who pay them.”

24th February 1942: “This close alliance of Jewish
capitalism and Communism is not new to us old Na-
tional Socialists . . . By this war, not Aryan mankind
but the Jew will be exterminated. Only after the exter-
mination of the parasites will the world know a long pe-
riod of collaboration between nations and therefore a
period of peace.”

26th April 1942: “The hidden powers which incited
Britain in the first World War were Jews .. . Bolshe-
vism is called the dictatorship of the proletariat and is,

61
in fact, the dictatorship of the Jews.”

30th September 1942: “If Jewry started this war
in order to overcome the Aryan people, then it would
not be the Aryans, but the Jews, who would be exter-
minated.” *

January 1943: “The alliance between the arch-
capitalistic State of the west with the mendacous so-
cialistic regime of Bolshevism is only thinkable because
the leadership in both cases is in the hands of Interna-
tional Jewry. Roosevelt's largely Jewish Brain Trust,
the Jewish press of America, the Jewish wireless and the
Jewish party organization are nothing more than the
equally Jewish leadership of the Soviet Union.”

January 1944: “The present struggle will open
the eyes of all nations about the Jewish problem. The
other nations will come to regard Germany’s anti-Jewish
measures as a precedent well worth following, and as
the natural course to take.”

Hitler has always understood the Jew and at the
Nuremburg Congress in 1937 he made a useful summary
of Jewish methods of penetration and control:

“The Jews worm their way into every nation and,
as business people, their first task is to establish and
consolidate their influence in the economic sphere.
After centuries of this process, the economic power
thus gained leads to the adoption of severe counter-
measures against the invaders by their hosts. This
natural form of self-defense quickens the Jewish at-
tempt to remove, by means of a camouflaged and slow
process of assimilation, not only the main grounds for
an attack on an alien race but also quickens their ef-
forts to gain a direct politica] influence on the country
in which they happen to live. Both of these dangerous
evils are ignored, partly through economic considera-
tions, and partly through an inherent bourgeois indif-
ference. Furthermore, the warning voices of influen-

*See Appendix.

tial or intellectual circles are just as deliberately ig-
nored. History teaches us that this is always the case
whenever prophetic results have an unpleasant charac-
ter. Thus, with the aid of the language which they
have adopted, these Jews are successful in gaining an
ever increasing influence on political development. De-
mocracy then establishes the pre-condition for the or-
ganization of those terroristic elements known to us as
Social Democracy, the Communist Party or the Bolshe-
vist International. Whilst Democracy gradually stifles
the vital forces of resistance, the advance guards of
Jewish world-revolution are being developed in the radi-
cal revolutionary movements.

“The ultimate goal is then the final Bolshevik Rev-
olution, that is to say, not the establishment of a prole-
tarian leadership by proletarians, but the subjugation
of the proletarians by their new alien masters. .

“In 1936 we proved by means of a whole series of
astounding statistics that in Russia today more than 98
per cent of the leading positions are occupied by
Jews...

“Who were the leaders in our Bavarian Workers’
Republic? Who were the leaders of the Spartacist
Movement? Who were the real leaders and financiers
of our Communist Party? Jews, everyone of them. The
position was the same in Hungary and the Red parts of
Spain.”

And, might be added, who are the leaders of the
“British” Labour Party today. Well, the New York Times,
31st August, 1946, prints this:

“Lord Rothschild, 35-year-old millionaire scientist,
told this correspondent that he had joined the Labour
Party because he had read the books of John Strachey,
whom the United States twice tried to expel.”

Interestingly, Jewish writers and scholars confirm
Hitler’s thesis of the origin and development of revolu-
tionary movements. Among these Jewish authorities are

such names as Bernard Lazare, Karl Marx, Henri Bar-
busse, Theodor Herzl and Benjamin Disraeli. In Conings-
by, published in 1844, some years before the revolution
unsettled Europe, Disraeli wroe of

“|. . that mighty revolution which is at this mo-
ment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact,
a second and greater Reformation, and of which so lit-
tle is as yet known in England, is entirely developing
under the auspices of Jews...” and “... every gen-
eration they must become more powerful and more dan-
gerous to the society which is hostile to them.” (Pages
231-2, Century Edition, N. Y., 1903.)

It is here that Disraeli has some interesting things to
say about the Jewish race:

“No pena] laws, no physical tortures, can affect
that a superior race should be absorbed by an inferior
or be destroyed by it. The mixed persecuting races dis-
appear; the pure persecuted race remains.” (Page 231.)

Chapter XIV

HITLER WANTED PEACE WITH BRITAIN

Both in Germany and in Britain there were many
people who did all they could to prevent Britain and Ger-
many ever going to war again. Hitler was one of these,
but he insisted that in the making of agreements to se-
cure peace, Germany should be placed on an equal foot-
ing with other great Powers. When this was denied Ger-
many left the League of Nations.

In his speech of 26th September 1938, he reminded
listeners that he had, up to that date, made five different
proposals for the limitation of armaments. All had been
rejected. In 1935 and again in 1936 he proposed to re-
duce the horrors of war by prohibiting bombing of any
kind outside the range of artillery on the fighting fronts
and by the abolition of tanks and artillery of the heavier
sorts. Britain stood to gain more from the proposals than
any other nation, but they were turned down.*

“The world,” said Hitler on 14th October 1938,
“which we are not harming in any way, and from which
we only ask that it will allow us to go about our busi-
ness in peace, has been submerging us for months un-
der a flood of untruths and calumnies.”

Eight days later, he said:

“Our aim is to make our people happy once more
by guaranteeing to them their daily bread. The work
involved is great, and the world should leave us to carry
it out in peace.”

But the world, as Disraeli said in his famous expres-
sion in CONINGSBY,

**.. . ig governed by very different personages from
what is imagined by those who are not behind the
scenes.”

“See Appendix II, page 112.
64

And who were the personages Disraeli referred to?
He tells us through Sidonia—‘“the Sidonias of Arragon
were Nuevos Christianos” and “No sooner was Sidonia
established in England than he professed Judaism’’—
who on his arrival in St. Petersburg, “had .. . an inter-
view with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin;
I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew.” He travelled to
Spain and had an audience “with the Spanish Minister,
Senor Mendizabel,” and beheld one like himself, “the son
of a Neuvo Christiano, a Jew of Arragon.” In Paris he
“beheld the son of a French Jew” (Soult). In Prussia
“Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prus-
sian Jew.” (Page 232, Century Edition, 1903.)

“There was no adventurer in Europe with whom he
(Sidonia) was not familiar. No Minister of State had
such communication with secret agents and political
spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever
outcasts of the world. The catalogue of his acquain-
tance in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret
Jews, Tartars, Gipsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari,
would throw a curious light on those subterranean
agencies of which the world in general knows so little,
but which exercise so great an influence on public
events.” (Page 202.)

A scanning of the pages of the Press in any Demo-
cratic country over the five-year period from 1933 to
1938 will show that Hitler was not to be allowed to re-
vive his country in peace.

In 1938, the British Legion offered its services to su-
pervise the suggested plebescite in Czechoslovakia. Hit-
ler declared he was willing to invite them over for the pur-
pose. Could a responsible German Chancellor have gone
further than that?

We have already commented that the Germans in
1940 had offered to retire their Feuhrer if by so doing
they could make peace with Britain (page 20). This of-
fer remained concealed from the British people unti] Mr.
Joseph Davies revealed it in 1943.

On 10th May 1941, Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s right-hand
man, risked his life in landing from an aeroplane in Scot-
land in an attempt to inverview a certain nobleman whom
he conceived might help him to get the war stopped. “The
Fuhrer,” he said, “does not want to defeat England and
wants to stop fighting.” He expressed his horror at the
idea of prolonging the struggle and gave his word of
honor that Hitler never entertained any designs against
the British Empire and did not aspire to world domina-
tion. But any negotiations between Germany and Eng-
land, he said, would have to be conducted on this side by
a Government other than Churchill’s.

Instead of investigating the possibility of ending the
carnage by such negotiations, and sending Hess back with
a reply, our Government, with Old Testament disregard
of chivalry, treated him as an ordinary prisoner of war
and later as a criminal.

In 1939, Lothrop Stoddard, the American authority
on Race, made a tour through Germany and Central Eu-
rope. He reported that

“most Germans think the war is stupidly unneces-
sary and that the British were sticking their noses into
what is none of their business.”

“Just think of it,” they exclaim, “here we are so
busy making over our country and now we have to lay
aside most of our fine construction plans to go and
fight it out with these damned Englishmen!” (Daily
Mail, 9th January 1940.)

“We Germans,” Goebbels told him, ‘‘don’t like
this war. We think it needless and silly.” (Daily Mail,
13th January 1940.)

In November 1941, Hitler announced:

“After the victories against Poland and in the
West, I again decided—and for the last time—to hold
out my hand to England and to point out that a continu-
ation of the war could only be senseless for England,
and there was nothing to prevent the conclusion of a

reasonable peace. Indeed there were no differences be-
tween England and Germany except those artificially
created.”

War, however, had been decreed by international
Jewish influences and nothing could stop it. These in-
fluences were able to fasten upon the politicians the
the catch-cry that no one could possibly trust Hitler or
have any dealings with him. He was to be regarded as
a pariah.

However, Stalin was wonderful.

That Bolshevism is largely a Jewish creation cannot
be denied.

But Hitler was pledged to free Europe from the in-
fluence of international Jewry. That made a difference.
We, who knew this, were stowed away in prison so that
we could not continue to reveal what we knew.

Chapter XV

HOW BRITAIN WAS EGGED ON TO MAKE WAR

The technique was simple: It was to brand Hitler
constantly as an aggressor and then try to make out that
it was necessary to “stop” him.

Hitler came to power in 1933.

By that time the policies of Great Britain, France,
Russia, the United States and many of the lesser Powers
were influenced by personages similar to those Disraeli
had written of in 1844 and as pre-Hitler Germany had
been. As early as April 1933 I prophesied in The Fascist
that the Jewish Money Power “will do all it can to bring
Hitler down, and failing all else, will try to drag the West-
ern Governments into a war with Germany by means of
its power and penetration of these Governments.” This
is what ensued, although I never thought the attempt
would succeed.

In Chapter XIV I quoted Hitler’s conciliatory peace
efforts. I will now quote some highly provocative speeches,
writings and actions of our “responsible statesmen” from
1933 up to the declaration of war they so ardently desired.

Sir Austen Chamberlain, as his father before him, a
spokesman for international interests with Jewish connec-
tions, described Hitler’s new regime as “Prussian Imperial-
ism with an added savagery—that no subject not of pure
Nordic birth was to have equality of rights and citizenship
in the Nation to which they belong.” (14th April 19338.)
This was in the House of Commons and the statement was
as irresponsible as it was inaccurate.

Soon afterwards, a Captain Sears removed a wreath
which had been placed on the Centotaph by an emmissary
of Hitler and threw it in the Thames.

During this year (1933) many anti-German boycotting
68

movements were started by Jews. These were mostly of
a commercial nature but even when a German team of
athletes came over to the White City in August, an at-
tempt was made to boycott them. It is interesting to note
that when the Author of this book advocated a boycott
of Jews in 1936, he was proceeded against on charges of
seditious libel and public mischief. (But he, of course, is
Nordic and native.)

David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish
Campaign in the United States, is reported to have told
Robert E. Edmondson, an anti-Jewish pamphleteer, “We
Jews are going to bring a war on Germany.” That was
1934. Samuel Untermeyer’s Anti-Nazi League was then
organized into a World Economic Trade Boycott of Ger-
many.

On the 14th January 1934, the Sunday Referee, Jew-
ish owned, referring to a visit of Herr Naberberg from
Germany with the object of establishing relations between
the Youth Movements of both countries, printed headlines
“Send those Nazis back to Berlin” and “Unwelcome Visi-
tors to London.”

The Sunday Express demanded that the world should
cut off all relations with Germany, trade, social and diplo-
matic. General Smuts from Capetown, joined the clamour
and on April 18th said “The world cannot allow the Jew
to be down-trodden.”

With disregard for the sentiments of a friendly coun-
try the British Government sent the Jewish Treasury Of-
ficial S. D. Waley to take part in the Anglo-German fi-
nancial negotiations in Berlin, November 1934.

In the Jewish Chronicle (London) 22nd February
1935 an obituary notice of J. E. Marcovitch, Jewish Man-
aging Director of the most important newspapers in Egypt,
stated that he had “converted the whole Egyptian Press
into a real battlefield against Hitlerism.”

After four years in Berlin as Ambassador for the
United States, Mr. William Dodd refused to attend the

70
Nuremberg celebrations and returned to the States.

When Hitler took over Austria, it was the Jewish pub-
lisher Victor Gollancz who “led” the protest in Trafalgar
Square.

It was noted about this time that the people who were
foremost in re-arming us were the very people who pre-
viously had disarmed us. The “No More War” policy
was abandoned as soon as it was realized that the Jewish
world influence would be seriously curtailed if not ac-
tually ended if Hitler could not be defeated.

The Evening Standard in July 1938 published a car-
toon holding up the German Aryan Religion to ridicule.

Paul Dreyfus, a French Jew from Mulhausen, where
the western branch of the Komintern had been estab-
lished, stated:

“Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of
England, Russia, France and the United States will be
formed to bring the German and Italian economic sys-
tems to their knees.” (La Vie de Tangier, 15th May 1938,
Tangier.)

Mr. Neville Chamberlain was not guilty of joining in
the clamour to “stop Hitler.” But said the Evening Stand-
ard, 5th August 1939:

‘... he is being hampered by incessant intrigues.
Mr. Eden is now allied to the Fabian-Zionist faction
headed by Mr. Israel Moses Sieff with its policy of par-
lour Bolshevism.”

Mr. Phillip Sassoon, of the wealthy and powerful Jew-
ish Sassoon family, and First Commissioner of Works,

‘... has been allowing Eden and his satellites to
hold meetings in his room at the House of Commons.
Eden and Sassoon have been friends for years.” (News
Review 21st July 1939.)

The principal anti-Nazi political leaders in Britain
were Churchill, Eden and Duff Cooper.

Press lies, alleging all sorts of misconduct by Nazis
were particularly rife in 1938. One, which, like the rest
was found to be quite without foundation, was to the ef-
fect that a titled British lady had been stripped and
searched on entering Germany at Aachen.

“Red Tape,” a civil service magazine, printed an ar-
ticle recommending the deportation of Nazi Germans from
England because of their anti-semitism.

The Daily Express of 25th February 1939 declared
“Anti-semitism is a curse of such a desperate character
that we must direct all our energies to destroying it.”

By the middle of 1939 we had a Jewish War Minis-
ter, Hore-Belisha; the Jewish Nathan was leading the
recruiting campaign for the Territorial Fores; the Jew-
ish Lady Reading leading the Women’s Services; and the
Jewish Humbert Wolfe compiled the National Service
Handbook.

No wonder that on April Ist, 1939, Herr Hitler’s Wil-
helmshaven speech warned the world:

“Only when the Jewish influence that splits the Na-
tions apart has been eliminated will it be possible to
bring about international] co-operation based on a last-
ing understanding.”

The warning was, of course, ignored. Even the Right
Bulletin, journal of the Right Book Club, called Hitler “a
megalo-maniac who, every day he is permitted to continue
unchallenged and unchecked, constitutes a grave menace
to the security of this realm and our Empire.”

A propaganda film, The Confessions of a Nazi Spy,
was shown in London. It was an insult to Germany. The
director of the film was the Jewish A. Litvak, the techni-
cal adviser was Rabbi H. Lissauer, the “historical direc-
tor” was the Jewish Leon Turrou; and the chief charac-
ters were played by three Jewish actors, E. G. Robinson,
whose real name is Goldenberg, Paul Lukas and F. Lederer.

At the Socialist Conference at Southport held in May

1939, Mr. Noel Baker confessed that the Socialist Party
“wrote messages for the secret German Press which cir-
culates in “Hitler’s country.”

In the United States before the House of Representa-
tives Committee on Un-American Activities, General van
Horn Moseley, sensitive to the Jewish influence in his coun-
try gave evidence in the form of a carefully compiled re-
port of Jewish revolutionary activity in the States. The
General gave at the same time evidence of a Jewish at-
tempt “to find his price” to remain silent. The Commit-
tee ordered that all of the evidence should be excluded
from the records of its proceedings! This was done not
only as a part of the usual conspiracy of silence on the
Jewish influence but also to prevent a sympathetic under-
standing of the cleansing going on in National Socialist
Germany.

Having succeeded in plunging France and the Brit-
ish Empire into war with their enemies, World Jewry,
stood aghast when Germany defeated France and threw the
the British Forces into the sea. The next thing to do was to
get the United States into the war or their cause would
be lost. Having aided in getting the United States into
the last war (see page 77) in a deal with Britain to grant
them Palestine as a future National Home, the task was
probably not considered without chance of success, as the
future showed.

Hollywood took a leading part in this campaign. And
Hollywood counts. The whole world watches Hollywood
and listens to Hollywood. And the Hollywood film-pro-
ducing companies are largely Jewish. That is no secret.

Of Hollywood, Senator B. C. Clark asserted on the
10th day of September 1941, that half a dozen men con-
trolling the film industry were bent on inflaming the
American people to clamour for war.

The Daily Express reported, 11th September, 1941:

“Appearing before a Senate Committee investigat-
ing propaganda in films, he (Senator Clark) said the

industry was turning out dozens of pictures to infect
the minds of their audiences with hatred to arouse their
emotions. America’s 17,000 cinemas virtually consti-
tute daily and nightly mass meetings for war.”

Chapter XVI

THE JEWS ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR POWER AND
THREATEN

The line of demarcation between threatening war and
waging it is rather indistinct when one of the belligerents
is a community sheltering behind the defenses of many
different Powers and recognized by these Powers to be
their nationals although actually alien to them all. I
have, however, endeavored to distinguish between these
two conditions, giving proofs of threats in this chapter and
proofs of actual waging of war in the next.

The following examples disclose that the Jews be-
lieve that they have the power, and will, if need be,
to cause international strife:

“If those discussions would result in the destruc-
tion of Jewish rights in that country (Palestine) ...a
deep despair would settle on the masses of the Jewish
people. That would not be a development which sane
statesmen could contemplate with unruffled compos-
ure. In every deed, they would be confronted by the
Jewish problem in a form more acute than at any time
in history, and, try how they would they could not es-
cape it. It would thrust up its hydra head at countless
places in the diplomatic scene and block every avenue
of international appeasement. (Watchman, London
Jewish Chronicle, 3rd March 1939.)

Rabbi A. H. Silver described in the London Jewish
Chronicle as “one of the greatest leaders of the American
Community,” speaking at his first meeting in England on
a tour for the Second Palestine War Appeal, at Conway
Hall on 12th March 1942, made this declaration:

“There would never be peace in Europe until the
problem of the Jewish People in Europe was solved.

15
And the world ought to know that.”

This statement was received with loud cheers by the
Jewish audience. Under the circumstances in which this
statement was made it is an utterance of extreme impor-
tance.

At a Zionist Conference, reported 22nd January 1943
(London Jewish Chronicle) the Jewish Berl Locker said:

“They had the right to come to the world today
and say ‘Here is the Jewish problem which you must
solve. Otherwise there won’t be any rest in the world.’ ”

Vladimir Jabotinski, Jewish Zionist leader, at the 5th
Congress of Polish Zionist Revisionists at Warsaw said that
the Jews might

(Zi

. . . become the dynamite which would blow up
the British Empire.” (London Times, 30th December
1981.)

A Jew Eberlin wrote in his book A la VEILLE de la
RENAISSANCE:

“The Jewish people will not obtain full possession
of Palestine until the fall of English Imperialism ...
Our principal aim, for the moment, is the destruction of
British Imperialism.”

Dr. B. Messinsohn, lecturing to Zionists at Cape Town,
2nd July, 1930, said:

“I warn the world that if it does not keep faith,
there are 16 million Jews who will be filled again with
the hatred and despair which released so many destruc-
tive forces among them in the days of their great op-
pression. I warn the world! We are a great Power.”
(Cape Times, 3rd July 1930.)

Col. Nathan, M. P., Chairman of the National De-
fense Public Interest Committee, formed to boost British
recruiting, told an audience:

“Tf Zion falls, the British Empire falls with it.”
(Jewish Chronicle, 27th January 1939.)

And now for a few statements acknowledging Jewish
power in the less recent past.

“We are at the bottom, not merely of the latest
Great War, but of nearly all your wars; not only of the
Russian, but of every other major Revolution in your
history ... We did it solely with the irresistable might
of our spirit, with ideas and propaganda.” (By the Jew-
ish writer Marcus Eli Ravage, Century Magazine, Jan-
uary 1928.)

“There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that
cannot be traced back to the Jews. We Jews are to-
day nothing else but the World’s seducers, its destroyers,
its incendiaries, its executioners.” (By the Jewish schol-
ar, Oscar Levy, in his preface to G. Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers,
The World Significance of the Russian Revolution.)

Goldwin Smith, D. C. L., Professor of Modern His-
tory at Oxford, wrote in the Nineteenth Century, October
1881, as follows:

“When I was last in England, we were on the
brink of a war with Russia which would have involved
the whole Empire ... The Jewish interests throughout
Europe, with the Jewish Press of Vienna as its chief
organ, was doing its utmost to push us in.” (This was
the time of the Russo-Turkish War, 1877.)

“The Jew alone,” he said further, “regards his race

as superior to humanity, and looks forward not to

its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph

over them all and to its final ascendency under the lead-
ership of a tribal Messiah.”

Col. C. Repington recounts a conversation he had
(5th April 1921) with Count Mensdorff, Austrian Ambas-
sador in London in 1914, as follows:

“Mensdorff thought that Israel had won the War;
they had made it, thrived on it, profited by it. It was
their supreme revenge on Christianity.” (After The
War, page 155, Constable, 1922.)

“The hitherto unsuspectedly powerful force of Zion-
ist Jewry in America” is revealed by Samuel Landman,
member of the Board of Deputies in England and a Coun-
cillor of the Zionist Federation, in a letter to the Jewish
Chronicle, 7th February 1936 (see another source, page
29). He writes:

“|. . that the best and perhaps the only way to
induce the American President to come into the war
was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jewry by prom-
ising them Palestine. By so doing, the Allies would en-
list and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful
force of Zionist Jewry in America and elsewhere in fa-
vor of the Allies on a quid pro quo basis.”’

The promise of Palestine as a National Home for the
Jews was made, and

“.. The Zionists carried out their part and helped
to bring America in. The Balfour Declaration of 2nd
November 1917 was but the public confirmation of a
verbal agreement of 1916.”

Mr. Lloyd George, in the House of Commons. 19th
June 1936, confirmed the facts set forth in Mr. Landman’s
letter with these words:

‘|. . We decided that it was desirable to secure the
sympathy and co-operation of that most remarkable
community, the Jews ... In these conditions, we pro-
posed this (Balfour Declaration) to our Allies.”

We have here, on the highest authority, proof that in
1916 the Jewish influence in the United States was the
deciding factor in the matter of peace or war for that
country.

“Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish finan-
ciers, the men who are interested in making wars for
their own profit. Control] them, and you will put an
end to it all.” (Henry Ford, the motor car manufacturer,

is reported as saying in the Cleveland News, 20th Septem-
ber 1923.)

Two years before the second world war, The Daily
Express of 28th April 1937 (note 1937 date—-Ed.), re-
ported that the present Baron Rothschild 3rd was asked
by Mr. T. Driberg where he would live when the lease on
his Piccadilly home fell in. The answer was:

“Nowhere, probably; I just don’t know. Not until
after the war, anyway.”

Evidently the Baron knew there was going to be a
war.

In February 1945 the Jewish Chronicle, in a leading
article, made the unguarded statement of “anti-semitism,
without which this war would probably not have come
about.”

This is authoritative evidence that we who were per-
secuted under regulation 18b knew what we were talk-
ing about.

Chapter XVII

THE JEWS DECLARE WAR

The Jew has always been at war with the Gentile
world.

It is not, of course open war. But confirmation can
be had in Jewish writings, if you look for it. The success
of this secret war depends chiefly on the silence with
which it is conducted. There must be no publicity. Their
campaign against our world reminds one of the cuckoo
which lays its eggs in the nest of the hospitable and un-
suspecting hedge-sparrow. The ultimate consequence is
the destruction of all the young hedge-sparrows. The Jews
have come to power in a similar way. Only the intelli-
gent few recognize them as inevitable enemies. Money
is power, and Jewish money soon buys off effective oppo-
sition to their presence and their actions.

The general plan is to penetrate every effective means
of influencing what is called “public opinion” and then to
wear down the morale of his unsuspecting enemy and host
by means of unsound ideas. Of these, “Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity,’”* “no distinction of race, creed or col-
,? are the principal shibboleths used to appeal to the
inferiority complex of the mob to promote the tolerance
of the Jewish influence in our midst. On the Liberal
and Socialistic foundations thus secured, they build up
Marxism, Bolshevism, perverted forms of Christianity,
and anti-Nationalism disguised as Internationalism, all for
the destruction of Gentile civilization. Through control,
direct and indirect, over the Press, the Cinema, the Wire-
less (i. e., radio—Ed.) and the doctrines of masonry, a
censorship is imposed upon anyone who has become aware
of what is going on and attempts to sound a warning.

our.

*See MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.
79

By such methods they destroyed Tsardom and re-
placed it with Bolshevism to become the new ruling class.
To undermine the power of their enemies they taught the
idea of Communism to the Gentile and sent the old regime
crashing at a time of stress and weakness. But their com-
munism is but an idea. In actual practice it is a super-
capitalism, State Capitalism, under their control. Per-
haps this is an explanation why Jewish bankers support
the Soviet regime and have been received in Moscow like
Kings.

The ultimate objective appears to be a world domi-
nated by Jewish influence supported by an oriental ca-
pacity for hatred towards one’s opponents and a desire
for revenge which it is difficult for the Aryan people to
understand. The fate of Hitler, the raping of German
women and the looting and plundering of National Social-
ist Germany is an example of their ferocity and of those
who fall under their influence.

“Not in vain,” said the Jewish poet Bialik, brother-
in-law of the Soviet General Gamarnik, likewise Jewish,
“have Jews been drawn towards journalism. In their
hands it has become a weapon highly suited to meet their
needs in their war of survival.” (An address at the He-
brew University, Jerusalem, 1ith May 1933)

None other than Benjamin Disraeli gives us this au-
thoritative statement, written in 1852 when the revolu-
tionary upheavals of 1848 had been convulsing Europe,
on the perpetual war of the Jews against Christian civili-
zation:

“The influence of the Jews may be traced in the
last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe.*
An insurrection takes place against tradition and aris-
tocracy, against religion and property ... the natural
equality of men and the abrogation of property are pro-
claimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional
Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found

*See MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.

at the head of every one of them. The people of God
co-operate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators
of property ally themselves with Communists; the pecu-
liar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and
low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to
destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes them
even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer
endure.” *

Apparently 100 years have brought no change in
spirit.
On the 24th March 1938, the Daily Express, whose

Chairman is a Mr. Blumenfield, printed a huge caption
across its front page:

JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY

On 2nd January 1938 The Sunday Chronicle printed
an enlarged caption:

500,000,000 POUND FIGHTING FUND FOR THE JEWS
over an article which said:

“The Jew is facing one of the biggest crises in his
troubled history. In Poland, Rumania, Germany, Aus-
tria, his back is to the wall. But now he is going to hit
back hard.

“This week the leaders of International Jewry will
meet in a village near Geneva to devise a counter-
offensive.

“Eight hundred thousand Rumanian Jews are now
jeopardized. In Hungary it is feared that open Gov-
ernment measures will shortly succeed the fierce unoffi-
cial anti-semitism in an attempt to force Hungarian Jews
to emigrate. Austrian Jews dread similar action.

“Now a united front composed of all sections of
Jewish parties is to be formed. It will show the anti-
semitic governments of Europe that the Jew insists on

*Life of Lord George Bentinck, Colburn & Co., London, 1852,
page 496.

82
fair play.

“The great International Jewish financiers are to
contribute approximately 500,000,000 pounds sterling.
This sum will be used to fight the persecuting States.
The battle will be fought on the world’s stock exchanges.
Since the majority of the anti-semitic States are bur-
dened with heavy international debts, they will find their
very existence threatened.”

“A Boycott throughout Europe of their export prod-
ucts by way of the retailer may undermine the present
uncertain economic stability of several of the anti-se-
mitic countries.

Here is an admission of Jewish power and the will
to ruin States hostile to them with utter disregard of the
trade requirements of the countries of which they pretend
to be nationals. It is obvious that a retail boycott in Eng-
land against German goods would almost immediately
cause a curtailment of British exports to Germany with re-
sultant unemployement.

Within a month the Goga Government of Rumania
which sought to restrict Jewish commercial control, fell,
owing to an economic and financial crisis.

On 3rd June 1938 the influential American Hebrew
printed an article with this foreword: “In a brilliantly
written article a non-Jewish newspaperman ventures a dar-
ing glimpse into the future.” The author was Joseph
Trimble. It contained the following:

“The forces of reaction are being mobilized. A
combination of England, France and Russia will sooner
or later bar the triumphant march of the success-crazed
Fuhrer. Either by accident or by design a Jew has
come to the position of foremost importance in each of
these nations.

“In the hands of non-aryans lie the very lives of
millions. Blum is no longer Premier of France ... but
President Lebrun is a mere figurehead and Daladier
has shouldered the burden just for a moment. Leon Blum

is a prominent Jew who counts ... He may yet be the
Moses who will guide the French nation (1946, Blum
negotiated French “Joan’—Ed.). And Litvinoff? The
great Jew who sits at the right hand of Stalin, the little
tin-soldier of Communism. Litvinoff has increased in
stature until he far outranks any Comrade of the In-
ternationale with the exception of the sallow-complex-
ioned Keeper of the Kremlin.

“Keen, cultured, capable, Litvinoff fostered and pro-
moted the Franco-Russian Pact. It was he who sold
President Roosevelt. He has accomplished the ultimate
in the diplomatic ken by keeping Conservative England
—managed by silk-topped Etonians—on the most ami-
cable terms with Red Russia.

“And Hore-Belisha! Suave, slick and clever, am-
bitious and competent, buoyant and authoritative...
his star is rising. He will follow the path of Disraeli
into the residence at 10 Downing Street, where the des-
tinies of all the King’s men are decided. The rise of
Hore-Belisha has been sensational. He is pastmaster
of the sagacious use of the public press, having learned
his stuff from Lord Beaverbrook. He has managed to
keep his own name prominent. This aggressive young
man has transformed the British Army from a shaggy,
shabby, down-in-the-mouth and round-at-the-heels out-
fit to a mechanical fighting-machine, which is at war-
time strength in a world that threatens to become little
more than a dung-hill for dictators.

“So it may come to pass that these three great Sons
of Israel, these three representatives of the race that has
been forced to play Jean Valjean to Hitler’s Jevert;
these three Jews will form the combine that will send
the frenzied dictator, who has become the greatest Jew-
hater in modern times, to the Hell to which he has con-
signed so many of ‘their kind of people’...

“It is almost certain that these three nations, bound
by numerous agreements, and in a state of virutal though
undeclared alliance, will stand shoulder to shoulder to

ward off the subsequent strides of Hitler toward the
East. The order that propels a Nazi goose-stepper
across the Czech border will be the spark that will once
again send Europe to smash.

“And when the smoke of the battle clears away and
the trumpets no longer blare and the bullets have
ceased to blast, there may be presented a tableau show-
ing the man who played God, the swastikaed Christus,
being lowered none to gently into a hole in the ground
as the trio of non-Aryans intone a ramified requiem, that
sounds suspiciously like a medley of the Marsellaise,
God Save the King, and the Internationale, blending in
grand finale into a militant, proud and aggressive ar-
rangement of Eili, Bili!” (Jewish cry of triumph.—Ed.)

Rabbi M. Perlzwerg, head of the British Section of
the World Jewish Congress, told a Canadian audience:

“The World Jewish Congress has been at war with
Germany for seven years.” (Toronto Evening Telegram,
26th Feb. 1940.)

This statement confirms Samuel Untermeyer’s declara-
tion of a “holy war” over Radio Station WABC on Au-
gust 7, 1938.

Another confirmation is from Moishe Shertok, speak-
ing at the British Zionist Conference in Jan. 1943:

“The Yishuv was at war with Hitler long before
Great Britain and America.” (Jewish Chronicle, 22 Jan.
1943.)

The Yishuv is the Jewish movement in Palestine.

Lord, Strabolgi, on 4th July 1944, said Chaim Weiz-
mann, just before the outbreak of the war, offered Mr.
Chamberlain help from Jewry all over the world, includ-
ing man-power.

Some details of the economic war, as conducted by
boycott, follow:

In April, 1934, Mr. Herbert Morrison, Chairman of

the London County Council and Leader of the Labor
Party, spoke at a ball to raise funds for the Jewish Rep-
resentative Council for Boycott of German Goods and
Services. He said:

“It is the duty of all British citizens who love free-
dom and liberty to boycott German goods and services.”

This is a lesson in international amity.

There was also a Joint Council of Trades and Indus-
tries with Lord Melchett and H. L. Nathan, now Lord
Nathan, both Jews, at its head, which boycotted English-
men who wanted to sell German goods.

This is a lesson in domestic amity.

There was a Women’s Shoppers’ League to assist the
boycotting, and a British Boycott Organization headed by
the Jewish Captain W. J. Webber (who later went bank-
rupt without assets), for which Mr. J. C. Lockwood, M.
P., and Sir George Jones, M. P., spoke.

Meanwhile the World Jewish Congress tried to or-
ganize a world boycott of German goods. Across the At-
lantic, Samuel Untermeyer was President of the Non-Sec-
tarian Boycott League of America.

All of these acts of economic war were permitted by
the Governments of Britain and the United States.

At a meeting organized by the United Jewish Com-
mittee to Aid Soviet Russia, held at Grosvenor House in
November, 1942, Mr. Beverly Nichols said he thought
that:

“When Hitler had said this was a Jewish war, he
was saying something which was largely true, in that
if it had not been for the pogroms and the constant
persecution of the Jews, the world would not have been
aroused to a consciousness of the essential evil that was
Nazi-ism.”

Rt. Hon. Walter Elliott, M. P., speaking at the Albert
Hall in a demonstration against the Nazis’ treatment of

86
the Jews, October 1942, said he,

“, . considered that the atrocities of the Nazis
were, more than any other single factor, the cause of
Great Britain going to war. He well remembered how,
years before the war, Sir Austin Chamberlain drew at-
tention to the atrocities against the Jews, and warned
the world that with such a system, ordinary relations
would be impossible.”

Neither of these speakers had a word, of course, of
the Jewish atrocities against Germany which caused Hit-
ler to destroy the Jewish power in his country.

In making war on Hitler, the Jews had also to make
war against the anti-Jewish workers in the Allied coun-
tries. Measures were passed through our feeble and sub-
servient Parliament which were quite un-British and un-
precedented in modern times. Every anti-Jewish patriot
was branded in the press as a Quisling, and if he was con-
sidered important enough, he was arrested. Then with-
out charge or trial, he was consigned to prison or intern-
ment camp indefinitely.

A subservient Home Secretary was secured in Sir
John Anderson, and later Mr. Herbert Morrison. The
latter politician, of whose racial origin we know nothing,
has a queer record as regards war. In the last War he
was a conscientious objector. He is responsible for the
following words in the Labour Leader, 3rd September
1914, which are quoted here so that the reader may know
the kind of man who was given office in 1940:

“Your King and Country need you!

“Ah! Men of the country, you are remembered.
Neither the King nor the Country, nor the picture pa-
pers have forgotten you. When the military were used
against you in the strike, did you wonder if your King
was really in love with you? Did you? Ah, foolish
ones, your King and Country need you. Need hundreds
of you to go to Hell and to do the work of Hell. The
Commandment says ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Pah! What

does that matter? Commandments, like treaties, were
made to be broken. Ask your parson; he will explain.
Your King and Country need you. Go forth, little sol-
diers, go forth, though you have no grievance against
your German brother—Go forth, and kill him. He is
only a German dog, will he not kill you if he gets the
chance? Of course he will—he is being told the same
story.”

In this war, however, Mr. Morrison exhorted the na-
tion to “GO TO IT.” What explanation, other than the
Jew is in peril, can be given?

It is not known if Mr. Morrison is a Jew or not. But
why would he speak at the all-Jewish “Sedar” Service,
17th April 1939, at the Hotel Astor, New York? Why
was he on the Committee of the Annual Meeting for the
Jewish National Fund’s 1936 Exhibition and Bazaar?

The somersault of Mr. Morrison is no more strange
than the somersaults of the Archbishops and of Mr.
Churchill in their outlook upon Bolshevism in Russia. It
is no more to be wondered at than the somersaults of the
peace enthusiasts who forget all about the desirability of
Peace when the destruction of the Jewish influence
seemed imminent. They rushed the country headlong into
war then.

Those patriotic men and women who expressed their
opinion that the country was brought into war by Jew-
ish influences were flung into jail by Sir John Anderson.
Regulation 18b which made this possible was pronounced
on all sides as un-British—the Ogpu Anglicised. Is that
why so few Members of Parliament raised their voices
against it? Perhaps they feared to find themselves in
Brixton alongside their colleague, Capt. A. H. M. Ramsey.
The Jewish Chronicle never failed to publish all the news
about 18b, true or false. Any feeble attempt on the part
of isolated inarticulate people to protest against the treat-
ment of loyal Britons under 18b was stigmatized as ‘“So-
licitude for 18b’s.”

In the ‘Sermon of the Week,” 8th May 1942, the
Jewish Chronicle said:

“We have been at war with him (Hitler) from the
first day that he gained power.’ ”

The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, 8th October 1942, said:

“The Second World War is being fought for the
defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.”

Chapter XVIII

THE JEWISH WAR

In Britain, the Ministry responsible during the
months before the War began was largely under Jewish
influence. The Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain* was
not, however, in my opinion, so strongly under this in-
fluence. He genuinely tried to avoid war over Czecho-
slovakia in 1938. His failing health weakened his resist-
ance to the pressure of the war-mongers. Had he resigned
in protest possibly he might have made sufficient stir to
prevent war.

With the exception of a few Ministers in compara-
tively domestic posts, the whole Ministry had contact with
the influential] part of the Jewish Community in Britain.
Why all these men acted as they did I do not pretend to
know. Some may have acted in ignorance; some because
of their ties with masonry. Some may have ceased to
think like Britons. All were steepd in the shibboleths of
democracy as politicians must inevitably be. None had
an inkling of Race, the true basis for Real Politics. I have
shown in other Chapters that there is no explanation of
their genera] disregard for their country’s interests if
they are to be regarded as intelligent and honest. My only
object in going further into their Jewish contacts is to
make the reader realize the extent of this alien penetra-
tion into British political circles. I wish to point out de-
fects in public life with a view to their reformation and
to excite endeavor to correct these defects by lawful means
because their continuance is a peril.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was Sir John Simon
(now Lord Simon), not Jewish, but with Jewish connec-

*Mr. Chamberlain’s father offered the Jews a valuable tract
of land in East Africa free for their National Home. At that time
a British settler could get no free land there. He had in fact, to
pay a deposit before he could enter the country.

tions. His wife is an ardent Zionist. Lord Simon was a
regular guest of the late Sir Phillip Sassoon. Lord Simon
recently came in for a legacy from the Jewish Sir Stra-
kosch. In February, 1943, when he became Lord Chancel-
lor, he declared at St. Stephen’s Club, S. W., “We shall
maintain,” in the matter of reprisals on the Nazis. “the
good British principle that only those should be punished
who are proved to be guilty.” This was said in full knowl-
edge that anti-Jewish patriots were at that moment suf-
fering years of imprisonment for no offense and without
trial, under Regulation 18B. Later, in a debate on 18b
in the House of Lords (London Times, 26 Jan. 1944) he
said that 18b was “preventive, not punitive;” here again,
he knew quite well that detention cannot be otherwise
than punitive. Actually, the detention at first was not
merely punitive but sadistic, whilst throughout the years,
detainees were only allowed to see their wives, families
or friends for half an hour per week in a supervised
prison visit.

The Home Secretary was Sir Samuel Hoare. He said
in a Rotary Club meeting in 1938 that he found the Jews

an asset to Britain.* Like Lord Simon, he was a regular
guest of Sir Phillip Sassoon.

Lord Halifax was Foreign Secretary. His son and
heir had married the granddaughter of a Rothschild.

At the War Office was Hore-Belisha. One of his
Under-Secretaries was the Jewish Sir F. C. Bovenschen.
His catering adviser was the Jewish Sir I. Salmon.

As Lord Chancellor we had Lord Maugham, with Jew-
ish family ties through marriage. His Permanent Secre-
tary was the Jewish Sir Claud (now Baron) Schuster.

Lord Runciman was Lord President of the Council;
his son and heir had married a Jewess as his first wife.

At the Board of Trade was Hon. O. Stanley, whose
brother-in-law was a Rothschild’s son.

*Sir Samuel must have been reading Beverly Nichols’ NEWS OF
ENGLAND.

Lord Stanhope was at the Admiralty. Though he
looks Jewish, here we know of no Jewish connection.

The Secretary of State for India was the Marquess
of Zetland, who has Jewish connections by marriage and
is a prominent Freemason. His Assistant Under-Secretary
was the Jewish Sir Cecil Kisch; his Honorary Financial
Adviser, the Jewish Sir H. Strakosch. The Economic Ad-
viser to the Indian Government was the Jewish T. E.
Gregory, whose real name is Guggenheim.

Mr. Malcolm Macdonald was Colonial Secretary. He
is associated with Israel Moses Sieff in “P. E. P.” (See
page 11.)

The Dominions Under-Secretary was the Duke of
Devonshire. On the Directorate of the Alliance Assur-
ance Company he had as associates the Jews Rothschild,
Bearsted and Rosebery. In 1936 the Duke was associated
with the management of the Exhibition in the Aid of the
Jewish National Fund.

Sir Kingsly Wood, the Secretary for Air, is a strong
supporter of “P. E. P.” institutions. He has described the
Jews as “a race we value in this country and whom we
always desire to have with us.”

The Ministry of Education was held by Earl de la
Warr. He is a “P. E. P.” associate. His Parliamentary
Secretary was Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, once Secretary of
“P, E. P.” Mr. Lindsay’s private secretary was Miss
Thelma Cazalet, a Zionist.

Mr. Ernest Brown was Minister of Labour and Na-
tional Service. He had the Jew Humbert Wolfe as Par-
liamentary Secretary.

Mr. E. L. Burgin was Transport Minister. He is a
solicitor whose firm advises the bankers Lazard Bros.

Mr. H. H. Ramsbotham (now Baron Soulbury) was
First Commissioner of Works. His wife is the Jewess De
Stein,

The Permament Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions

was Sir Adair Hore, step-father of the Hore-Belisha. War
Minister.

For further research we suggest reading of THE
JEWS, by Hilaire Belloc.

The French Government was similarly penetrated,
influenced and controlled by Jewish interests.

In December 1938 the New York Daily News ran a
several columned article on the Jews holding Federal po-
sitions in the United States.

As the war developed, certain changes took place in
our Government. The chief one was Mr. Winston
Churchill becoming Prime Minister in place of Mr. Cham-
berlain. Mr. Churchill is half American. His family has
had close connections with Jewish interests. Mr. Churchill
has said that his father, Lord Randolph, had Lord Rose-
bery as his greatest friend. It is to be remembered that
Lord Rosebery was married to a Rothschild. Lord Ran-
dolph was the recipient of a “loan” of 5,000 pounds ster-
ling from Lord Rosebery. Accompanied by a Rothschild
mining engineer he toured South Africa investing in gold
mines. It is said that his profit was considerable. An an-
cestor, the Duke of Marlborough, is said to have received
a retainer of 6,000 pounds a year from the Jewish gold
broker Solomon Medina in exchange for information about
the progress of the war on the Continent. This informa-
tion enabled Medina to rig markets. August Belmont, a
Rothschild representative in New York was a close friend
of Churchill’s maternal grandfather.

Churchill’s brother is with the Jewish stock broker-
age firm of Messrs. Vickers Da Costa & Co., who handle
the Rothschild account. Churchill’s daughter married the
Jewish comedian Vie Oliver and divorced him in 1945.
His son, Randolph, officiated in 1933 as Chairman of the
Young Men’s Committee of the British Association of Mac-
cabees, an all-Jewish society. Churchill was injured in
the United States some years before the war, by misjudg-
ing the reversed traffic directions, while there to visit Mr.
Bernard Baruch. Mr. Baruch’s influence in America needs

no comment. From the Jewish Sir H. Strakosch Churchill
received a 20,000 pound legacy in 1944.

Mr. Churchill has long received favorable mention
in the Jewish press of Britain. His fight on the Aliens
Bill and against the tightening-up of naturalization regu-
lations in 1908-4 received this comment:

“The House of Commons Lobby correspondent of
the Daily Telegraph says ‘Obstructionists had matters
all their own way with the Aliens Bill in Grand Com-
mittee yesterday. Clause I was postponed and only a
line and a half of Clause II was passed. At this rate it
will take 165 days to get the measure through. Mr.
Churchill, Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. Runciman were in
high glee at the success of their tactics.” (Jewish
World, 24th June 1904.)

“Mr. Winston Churchill’s splendid fight in Grand
Committee against the first Aliens Bill will linger long
in the recollection of those who witnessed it.” (Jewish
Chronicle, 15th Dec. 1905.)

“Dr. Dulberg said that the naturalization question
was an essentially Jewish one, and that it was the am-
bition of the bulk of the Jewish aliens who came to this
country to be naturalized. He expressed the hope that
Mr. Churchill would carry his promises into effect and
transform his words into deeds.” (Jewish Chronicle
14th Dec. 1906.)

“Mr. (now Sir) Stuart Samuel reminded his co-
religionists that in 1903 Mr. Churchill rendered val-
uable service to them by opposing the Aliens Bill. Mr.
Churchill was one of the first to come forward to op-
pose that Bill, and no one fought against it with greater
spirit or greater ability.” (Manchester Guardian, 21st
April 1908.)

Mr. Churchill later sought regard for his services:

“Mr. Churchill in addressing a Jewish audience at
the rooms of the Achei B’rith Society on Sunday eve-
ning appealed for their support on account of the work

he had done for Jews in connection with the Aliens Bill.
With regard to the first measure on the subject, men
like Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Herbert Samuel and himself
had striven their utmost to wreck the bill.” (Manchester
Guardian, 9th Jan. 1906.)

Mr. Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer in
1925 when Britain returned to the gold standard. He ad-
mitted in the House of Commons on 17th Nov. 1944 that

“,. he had been a consistent friend of the Jews
and a constant architect of their future.”

Mr. Eden replaced Lord Halifax as Foreign Minister
in 1940. Lord Halifax went to the United States with the
part Jewish Sir R. I. Campbell to help him. It is no secret
that Mr. Eden is a great friend of Litvinoff, Foreign Min-
ister of the Soviets, and of the late Sir Phillip Sassoon,
whose mother was a Rothschild. Eden used to “sup” with
Sassoon several times a week. Here are some newspaper
extracts of Mr. Eden’s Jewish political affiliations:

“Those who disagree with the Government are look-
ing with interest to Mr. Anthony Eden and wondering
which way he means to go. I learn that Mr. Eden is
being attracted by the Planners, the organization called
Political and Economic Planning, which names itself
P. E. P. for short. Planner No. 1 is Mr. Israel Sieff.
In his Park Lane flat he gives some of the best dinner
parties in London. Unleavened bread is the feature of
these functions. Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, Mr. Robert Ber-
nays and Commander Locker-Lampson are frequent
guests. Mr. Amery is also a friend of the Sieffs!

“Members of a Sieff dinner party are usually taken
around midnight to some dance in aid of a Jewish char-
ity at one of the big hotels.

“But before leaving the flat Mr. Sieff provides the
party with entertainment. They are invited to strip off
their tail coats and play ping-pong or else ride on the
artificial electric camel upon which Mr. Sieff takes ex-

ercise each morning.” (Evening Standard, 5th August
1938.)

“Sir Phillip Sassoon, First Commissioner for Works,
is the latest Minister to be involved in controversy with
the Premier. Mr. Chamberlain discovered that Sir
Phillip had been allowing Anthony Eden and his satel-
lites to hold meetings in his room at the House of Com-
mons. Eden and Sassoon had been friends for years.”
(News Review, 21st July 1938.)

The pedigree of the Schaffalitsky in Mr. Eden’s name
is not known.

Certain transfers to other posts took place among
men I have already mentioned. Of new blood were:

1. The Minister of Food, Lord Woolton, ex-manager
of the Jewish firm of Lewis’s, Ltd.

2. Minister of Information, Sir J. Reith. Sir John
is married to one of the Oldhams family of the Daily Her-
ald. The Jewish Elias (Baron Southwood) has an impor-
tant interest here.

3. Mr. Ernest Bevin as Minister of Labour. He was
Deputy Chairman of the Daily Herald under Baron South-
wood.

4. Sir J. L. Gilmour, as Minister of Shipping. He is
a member of the Jewish stockbroking firm of Joseph Sobag
& Co.

5. Lord Hankey, Minister Without Portfolio to the
War Cabinet. The Sunday Express, 26th June 1922, and
the Jewish Guardian, 30th June 1922, have mentioned him
as being Jewish.

6. Mr. Brenden Bracken, Minister of Information
after Sir J. Reith. Mr. Bracken was lately Managing Di-
rector of the Jewish-controlled Economist. He recently
received a legacy from the Jewish Sir H. Strakosch.

7. Mr. Alfred Duff Cooper, after a lecture tour of
the United States to condition the American mind for war,

became Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As one
of the most ardent advocates of armed opposition to Hit-
ler, his child was favored by having the late Otto Kahn,
of the New York banking firm of Kuhn-Loeb, become its
god-father,

8. Mr. J. A. de Rothschild became Joint Parliamen-
tary Secretary, Minister of Supply in 1945.

This is by no means a complete account of the Min-
isterial changes, but it will serve to demonstrate the sort
of people who formed our Government during the War.
The success of a politician depends on his working for the
maintenance of the Jewish influence and never opposing
it. Little wonder that the scope of this influence is with-
held from the British people. Any politician breaking the
Conspiracy of Silence risks his feeodom and perhaps his
life. Capt. Ramsay has thus far escaped with the loss of
his freedom.

In the narrow strata of our national life that I have
reviewed I have shown how the complacent Gentile poli-
tician finds it well paid to speak of Jews as injured inno-
cents with never a part in the corruption of ideas, national
degeneration, or bloody revolution. The controlled press,
radio and cinema, is ever at his command. But native
Britons daring to oppose being smothered by this alien
influence are treated as criminals. It is anti-Gentilism that
goes aided, abetted and unchecked everywhere in official
circles.

That similar influences abound in the Governments
of the United States and Russia is not unknown to us here
in Britain, but my purpose will be served by pointing out
that nearly all the important agents sent to this country
by these Governments have been either Jewish or accom-
panied by Jewish advisers.

The Soviet Ambassador in London for the first years
of the war was the Jewish Maisky; the present Ambassa-
dor is Feodor Gusev (Joseph). The Allies are scarcely
allowed to speak with one another except through their

Jewish emissaries or men with Jewish wives. The Soviet
Foreign Office has always been staffed with Jews or their
complacent tools. Maxim Litvinoff, man of many aliases,
ran it for years. The Daily Telegraph reported, 9th April
1937, “Since M. Litinoff ousted Chicherin, no Russian ever
held a high post in the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.”
This paper overlooks that Chicerin’s mother was a Jewess.
Molotov, the Foreign Minister, has a Jewish wife. One of
his two assistants is the Jewish Lozovsky. Lozovsky re-
newed the Kamchatka fisheries treaty with Japan in
1942. This was a considerable aid to the country
Churchill arranged with Roosevelt to bring into the war
against us.

Litvinoff was the Soviet Ambassador to the United
States from 1941 to 1943; the Jewish B. E. Stein to Italy
until relations were severed by war; the Jewish Yureneff
to Germany and the Jewish Souritz to France. The in-
fluence is carried over into the army—the Russian soldier
bears on his cap the five-pointed Star of Judah. The press
reported the Jewish General Chornyakhovsky as leading
the Soviety Army into East Prussia. The reconquered
Ukraine has the Foreign Commissar, the Jewish D. Z.
Manuilsky, an old associate of the Jewish Bela Kun, leader
of the Red Terror in Hungary. As the Soviet armies
drove through Hungary, the Jewish Komlosi was Com-
missar in Szeged and the Jewish Sobesi in Debreczen.

Mrs. Churchill was met by the Jewish Mme. Molotov
and the Jewish Maisky on her arrival in Moscow in 1945.
Stalin’s second wife is Jewish and the Jewish Kagano-
vitch has been his right hand man.

In the United States, Mr. Cordell Hull is influenced
by his Jewish wife. Mr. Sol Bloom is Chairman of an
important Foreign Affairs Committee. The Jewish L.
Steinhardt was Ambassador to Russia. He has since been
shifted to Turkey. Aiding greatly in preventing Poland
from coming to an agreement with Germany over the Ger-
man city Danzig and the Corridor was the half Jewish
Ambassador to France, W. C. Bullitt.

The Jewish R. E. Schoenfeld has filled the position
of American Charge d’Affaires to the various sham Allied
“Governments” in London. Mr. Bernard Baruch, the
American “elder statesman” has functioned in various
advisory capacities in the mobilization of the war effort
in that country. The United States Treasury is directed
by Henry Morgenthau, Jr., author of the infamous Mor-
genthau Plan. The Jewish Dr. H. Aboulker concealed in
his house British and American agents preparing the Al-
lied invasion of French North Africa. The Jewish politi-
cal columnist Walter Lippman instructs the American pub-
lic how to think politically. Britons are weary of the
phrase in the Times “as Mr. Walter Lippman says.” Mr.
Lippmann told the American Society of Newspaper Edi-
tors (21st April 1944) that the peace of the world would
be kept by the United States, Russia and British Empire
in a permanent alliance.

In Italy, the fall of Mussolini was brought about by
the Jewish Bottai and the half-Jew Ciano, and the Gentile
Grandi. Bodoglio, who was held up as the nation’s leader,
is said to be Jewish (Opinion Magazine, Rabbi Stephen
S. Wise, editor, Nov. 1939).

“General Tito” of Jugoslavia made the Jewish Moishe
Pyade his Vice President; the Jewish Dr. A. Berkania his
Supreme Judge; his Adviser on Foreign Affairs is a man
by the name of Levy and his Financial Adviser the Jew-
ish Mikloshi. Slovene partisans (the “Liberation Front’)
have the Jewish leaders Bebler, Kidric, and Vidmar.

The French Government of de Gaulle has contained
the following known to be Jewish: Rene Meyer, Minister
for Communications; Mendes France, Minister for Jus-
tice, replacing J. Abadie, known for the judicial murder
of M. Peucheu; Pierre Bloch, Under-Secretary of the In-
terior; Alphand, Director of Economic Affairs; J. Koenig,
Commander-in-Chief of the French Forces from June
1944, and Carsain and Monthoux, secretaries of De
Gaulle. The Director of the Press Bureau of the War
Ministry at Algiers is the Jewish Georges Meyer; the

Mayor of Algiers, 1945, is the Jewish S. Leber, Director
of the Bank of Algiers.

In Abyssinia the Jewish Norman Bentwich visited
the country to advise the Emperor on the Constitution he
was to have. As a result an almost completely Jewish ad-
ministration was installed for the Emperor. Prof. Kamrat
is in charge of Education; the Messrs. Tedesco and Katz
manage Finance; N. Marion is Minister of Justice; Dr. A.
Schalit is Minister for Health and Ulendorf manages prop-
aganda for native consumption.

In Eritrea a Mr. Greenspan is Public Prosecutor.

When Russia proposed terms for an armistice with
Finland in 1944 the communication was made through
Marcus Wallenberg, a prominent Jewish financier in Swe-
den (Times, 6th March 1944). It was through Wallen-
berg that the United States arranged to curtail the supply
of Swedish ball-bearings to Germany.

In the Ukraine, as in many other countries, the gue-
rillas were largely Jewish. It was their activities which
led to the reprisals we have heard so much about.

The Inter-Allied Committee of Co-ordination, an or-
ganization ‘mainly concerned with propaganda for the
United Nations,” has as its Secretary the Jewish A. Ham-
wee, who was arrested in Buenos Aires in June, 1944, on
suspicion of engaging in espionage.

“Liberated Belgium” had the Jewish Gutt ag Finance
Minister. His confiscatory decrees are well known.

To “Liberated Greece” was sent the Jewish Sir S. D.
Waley to advise on the new currency. As a result Greece
is now enslaved under the Gold Standard.

As the Allies burst through Germany, Jews were
placed in important administrative positions. The Jew-
ish Winkler became Police Commissioner in Cologne. The
Jewish H. Fried became the American Military Governor
of Hanover.

Henry Morgenthau, Jr., is author of the Morgenthau

100
Plan, the basis of the Potsdam Declaration.

The London Economist, 28th August 1945, wrote of
the Potsdam Declaration:

“The conviction that the peace proposal at Pots-
dam is a thoroughly bad peace is not based on any sen-
timental softening toward Germany. It is based upon
the belief that the system proposed is unworkable. It
offers no hope of ultimate German reconciliation. It
offers little hope of the Allies maintaining its cumbrous
controls beyond the first years of peace. Its methods
of reparation reinforce autarchy in Russia and consum-
mate the ruin not only of Germany but of Europe.
Above all it has in it not a single constructive idea, not
a single hopeful perspective for the post-war world.”

Senator William Langer (North Dakota) said in the
U. S. Senate:

“Mr. Morgenthau now stands convicted before the
conscience of the world as the instigator of systematic
annihiliation of the German-speaking peoples. The
record further proves, beyond any question of doubt,
that these fanatical and reactionary high priests of hate
and vengeance will never be able to defend their con-
spiracy before the bar of human reason or human de-
cency. (Congressional Record, April 18, 1946.)

Colonel Bernard Bernstein is the chief cartel investi-
gator for the United States Army.

U. S. District Judge Simon H. Rifkind was appoint-
ed Special Adviser to General Eisenhower (and later to
Gen. Joseph T. McNarney) after the late Genera] Patton
had belittled de-nazification by declaring that he had
“never seen the necessity of the denazification program.”
(New York Times, 23rd Sept. 1945.)

On the 24th September 1945, the New York Times
editorialized as follows:

GENERAL PATTON ON POLICY

“General Patton is a fine soldier. He has won the

101

well deserved gratitude of the American people for his
brilliant military leadership. But General Patton is
now head of the Military Government of Bavaria, and
what he says on the subject of occupation policy is cer-
tain to affect both the attitude of our own troops and
the response of the German people. When, therefore,
General Patton belittles the very purpose for which the
war in Europe was fought—namely, the denazification
of Germany—we do not believe that his remarks should
go unchallenged either by his commanding officer, Gen-
eral Eisenhower, or by his superiors in Washington.”

This editorial opinion by an authoritative newspaper
in the United States, owned by Mr. Arthur Hays Sulz-
berger, the Jewish publisher, is but a confirmation of our
own opinion that the war was Jewish. Denazification
brought with it Jewish administration everywhere.

The Soviets appointed the Jewish Scheinine as crimi-
nal investigator in their zone in Berlin.

Wherever the Allies “liberate” there arises at once
confusion, want and anarchy. When the occupying power
is Russia, no individual opposed to Bolshevism can hope
for anything better than starvation. For the less lucky,
there is deportation and a nameless death in prisons, in-
ternment camps and mines. The Bishop of Gloucester
at the Church Assembly in February, 1945, described how
the Russians were attempting to destroy the people and
their Churches in Latvia and Esthonia. The greater part
of Europe is already in the grip of Bolshevism. When
the European countries were “liberated?” by the British
and American Forces, impotent governments of any shade
from pink to red were formed. The people starve and,
except where the Allied troops compel order, barbaric
bestiality, formerly kept under disciplined control by the
Fascist and National Socialist governments, is again let
loose. The exploits of the “Underground” are extolled in
the liberal democratic press while the efforts of the law-
fully constituted governments to control this menace to
their security were subjected to the vilest calumnies. What

102

connection there is between this anachronism and the large
number of Jewish names appearing in reports of “Under-
ground” activities is left to the reader’s judgment.

Clearly an attempt is to be made to bolshevise Eu-
rope. Starvation is the best foundation for a bolshevist
revolution. Is this why starvation always follows “libera-
tion”? We have seen how UNRRA and the provision for
supplies is largely under Jewish control. It is worthwhile
giving thought to the long occupation of the French ports
by the German garrisons. As the Russians advanced into
Germany from the East they liquidated the garrisons of
the Baltic ports as soon as they were able to. I make the
suggestion that the passive policy adopted by Britain and
America with regard to the French ports may not have
been imposed by military considerations at all, but by
the Supreme Power behind the Allies, to ensure the non-
availibility of the ports and the starvation of the “‘libera-
ed” peoples, with the object of facilitating bolshevisation.

This Chapter will not be complete without a few
words about two orders from General Eisenhower. The
one, insisting on unconditional surrender, and the other,
enforcing non-fraternization with the Germans.

Our unconditional surrender policy prolonged the
war far beyond what was necessary. It caused thousands
of needless casualties. It ensured the annihilation of many
ancient and modern cities, with the roads, railways and
canals serving them. No Allied interest could possibly
benefit. By ruining Germany, we ruined a market for our
own goods.

As for the non-fraternization order, one would have
thought that if the German mentality had been as distorted
as it was claimed, a good cure would have been friendly
talk between “enlightened Allied soldiers and the be-
nighted anti-semities of Germany. Then the latter might
realize how mistaken they were.

But from the Jewish denazification angle, the ruin
of Germany, the destruction of her culture and the massa-

103

ere of her fighting men in battle mean nothing to an Old
Testament outlook steeped in the Asiatic mentality of
revenge and extermination.

Fraternization would speedily have made the Allied
fighting men conscious of the Jewish influence for which
they had been driven into battle. Through fraternization
they would really have discovered for what they had been
fighting! No, it was necessary to maintain the non-frater-
nization order until most of the keenest of the Nazis had
been wiped up, and that was what was done.

Non-fraternization is entirely contrary to all ideas of
British chivalry and remote from Aryan British spirit.

Chapter XIX

THE PEACE: BRITAIN DEFEATED
WHOEVER WINS

Had peace come by negotiation or stalemate, Brit-
ons would then have been able to deal with the Jewish
influence dominating the affairs of their country. Then
there would have been a good chance for a brilliant Brit-
ish future.

But the United Nations won outright, thus enabling
the Jewish influence at once to achieve complete World
Domination through the Governments of the United
States, Russia and the British Empire. This influence in
Russia will control the continent, and the United States
will hold the rest of the world in debt bondage.

“The United States, the greatest naval Power in the
world,” admits the Times, 31 August 1944. “It is un-
deniable,” says this paper, 11th Nov. 1944, “that the thread
running through all American thinking on this subject is
that the age of sea-power was Britain’s and the age of
air-power is to be America’s.”

Russia has already shown that whenever she de-
sires, she can shoulder Britain out of her way. She made
war on Bulgaria without consulting us at the very mo-
ment when our emissaries were conferring with Bulgarian
representatives on the terms of a peace. Let Churchill’s
own estimates of Soviet intentions be quoted from his
GREAT CONTEMPORARIES (1937, page 168):

“No faith need be, indeed may be, kept with the
communists. Every act of goodwill, of tolerance, of
conciliation, of mercy, of magnanimity on the part of
the governments or statesmen is to be utilized for their
ruin. Then when the time is ripe and the moment op-
portune every form of lethal violence from mob revolt

104

105

to private assassination must be used without stint or
compunction. The citadel will be stormed under the
banners of Liberty and Democracy; and once the ap-
paratus of power is in the hands of the Brotherhood, all
opposition, all contrary opinions must be extinguished
by death. Democracy is but a tool to be used and after-
wards broken.”

Yes, that was Churchill, the British Bulldog, the Sa-
viour of Humanity! who announces that Britain’s policy
is to maintain unbroken friendship with the devils he de-
scribes! He allows his underlings to delude the masses
with the catchword ‘“Bolshevist Bogey.” Stalin’s inten-
tions have been clearly stated by him in LENINISM (Allen
& Unwin, 1942): they are to build up in Russia a ‘“‘dicta-
torship of the proletariat” so mighty that it can confront
the “bourgeois” States with invincible power. Then that
power will be used against them. The dictatorship is not
the proletariat at all—the proletariat is powerless. The
real power is the Jewish influence. Already the plans
are laid.

Although there is now some public knowledge about
the evils of the Gold Standard, thanks to the pioneering
efforts of the late Arthur Kitson, sufficient perhaps to
prevent the adoption by this country of a direct Gold
Standard, there is some liklihood that a camouflaged Gold
Standard may be foisted upon us. Henry Morgenthau,
Jr., evolved some such plan at the Internationa] Mone-
tary Conference at Bretton Woods in 1944. Discussion
of this in the House of Commons was prevented by trick-
ery. Wall Street will go along with Jewish controlled
gold-producing interests of South Africa and with the
Soviets. The weapons of domination will be

1. Gold
2. Inextinguishable Debt.

A peace of domination may be enforced by means of
an International Airforce maintained by the Jewish in-
fluenced United Nations Organization.

106

The Earl of Harewood, Grand Master of the United
Grand Lodge of England, at the Annual] Investure of Of-
ficers of Freemasonry, 26th April 1944, expressed the
hope:

‘.. . that before the next Festival, Europe would
be secure, and that these officers appointed that day
would enter into a year in which the principles of
Freemasonry and their influence would be able to play
a valuable part in the peace settlements throughout the
world.”

Thus we have on the authority of the Grand Master
that Freemasonry is political and that the Grand Lodge is
part of a world-wide organization.*

In 1937 King George VI accepted Freemasonic office
at the hands of a subject.t That is virtual abdication. It
is a point to consider if everything the Government has
done since has been illegal, including the precipitation of
the Empire into a war and the indefinite imprisonment
without trial of patriotic men and women who sought to
prevent it.

Sir Stafford Cripps, whose leanings towards Marxism
are well known, made this interesting statement about the
coming war at Ipswich, 13th October 1935:

“If war comes, as come it may, that war has to be
used for the destruction of Capitalism. It will have to
be used by the workers in this country to undermine
the whole system.”

The workers have been so thoroughly propagandized
by Jewish influences on the Marxist theory that they do

*See MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.

tA regularly issued Government Postage Revenue Stamp, in
addition to showing the crowned head of King George VI, which is
customary, carries five important Masonic symbols—the Square and
Compass, the Trowel, the Setting Maul, a Sprig of Acacia carried by
the Dove of Peace and a looped Cable Tow. This official recognition
of Freemasonry does much to indicate in what high regard the
Fraternity is held in that country. To win such an honor is abun-
dant proof that the influence of Masonic principles and teaching
are reflected in the vision, progress and welfare of the nation. (From
the Masonic Chronicler, Waterloo, Wisconsin, U. S. A.)

107

not know that ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP and USURY are
their real enemies. The English authors, Arthur Penty
and Hilaire Belloc are worth reading on this subject.

Important Zionists forecast with confidence that
Britain is to be forced to yield Palestine to the Jews after
the war. For example, in the New York Times of January
38rd, 1946, Louis Lipsky, of the World Zionist Executive
Committee, warned Britain that “an axe may be driven”
into the British Imperial line to India. At this rally at
Carnegie Hall, sponsored by prominent American Zion-
ists, Hungarian-born Rabbi Stephen Wise, pointing at the
banners in the hall bearing the legend “American Chalut-
zim Ready to Build and Defend Palestine” and ‘Aliya,
under all circumstances,” declared:

“cc

“We mean exactly what that says,” adding, “and

no government can prevent it.”

Evidently the Jews can arrogantly threaten the gov-
ernments of the world and be lauded for it but criticism
of them is forbidden. There is to be “free speech” on
every subject except their own international] intrigue which
keeps the world in a turmoil.

Congressman Patterson has introduced a bill, H. R.
6897, June 27, 1946, in the House of Representatives in
the United States which is to make any criticism of Jew-
ish activities punishable by fine and imprisonment.

In both England and the United States patriots have
been imprisoned for such criticism. It is not yet possible
to execute them as in Soviet Russia (where criticism of
Jewish activities is a capital offense) and as Peucheu was
judicially executed in North Africa. However, it is un-
likely that there is enough informed opinion in either
country to offer any serious resistance to such a policy.

Chapter XX

CONCLUSION

I have shown in the foregoing pages that every osten-
sible “cause” for this war given by politicians and press
is false.

It was a JEWISH WAR OF SURVIVAL.

The nations that were fighting were forced into it by
the Jewish Influences of “Democracy” and of Bolshevism.
The People are quite unable to protect themselves against
the influence of Organized World Jewry under the demo-
cratic system.
system.

The stupid doctrine that to be anti-Jewish is to be
pro-German has been preached by some of our Parliamen-
tary politicians. That such is not true is shown by the
words of Rev. C. B. Mortlock, preaching in Westminister
Abbey 2nd January 1943 on the occasion of the offering
of a special prayer for the “persecuted” Jewish people. He
said:

“How often do you come across the man who is
willing to do everything possible to defeat the Germans
utterly, yet admits he has some sympathy for Hitler’s
denunciation of the Jews.” (Jewish Chronicle, 8th Jan-
uary 1943.)

Hundreds of decent British citizens were jailed for
years without trial or charge simply because they were
aware of the menace of the Jewish influence and its meth-
ods of working. They were dangerous to Jews, not to
their country. They were loyal to their own race when
the Government was not “The Bolshevist Bogey” is no
ghost story, but a Jewish inspired reality.*

Sir George W. Rendel said:

“|, . anti-semitism in Europe is one of the things the

*See MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.
108

109

United Nations are fighting to destroy. We hope to
establish in Central Europe countries without racial
theories.”

Similarly, in June 1944, Mr. Michael Foot said at a
meeting in Grosvenor House:

“When the armies of the United Nations go back
into Europe, one of their main purposes must be to
stamp out the anti-semitic creed which had been
preached by Hitler.’’*

“One of the things’! ‘One of the main purposes”!
it was the ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE, since none other
can be substantiated.

Even the Jewish Chronicle agrees with this conclu-
sion in its leading article of 2nd February 1945, which
speaks of ‘anti-semitism, without which this war would
probably not have come about.”

Well, it DID come about, and the result is the sheer
devastation of the best part of Europe and its domination
by Bolshevism, whilst the British Empire, nearly ruined
and rotten to the core with Jewish influences, sinks back
to the position of a second-class power.

I am glad to have done the little that was possible
to try to prevent all this and regret only that the Jewish
influence acting through the power of Money and Propa-
ganda in the opposite direction, has won the first round
hands down, by sacrificing millions of Gentile dupes in a
JEWISH WAR OF SURVIVAL.

The Jews will also win the next round unless those
of us who possess intelligence and character will use both
and realize as Disraeli wrote—-ALL IS RACE, and seek
to eliminate from our civilization and culture the Jewish
influence which has caused the great bloody schisms
between the western peoples of kindred race and spirit.

*Mr. Atlee, moving the resolution for ratification of the San
Francisco plan for peace, said: “Although the agreement prevented
the world organization from interfering in the domestic affairs of
any country, he was sure that it would act swiftly if, for example,
there was ever such another outrage as the treatment of the Jews
in Germany by Hitler.”

Appendix I

THE WAR OF EXTERMINATION

It is timely to comment on the expression War of Ex-
termination which appears in Hitler’s speeches as the
bombardment of civilian populations from the air in-
creased in intensity.

In Hitler’s peace offer of March 31, 1936, the limi-
tation of aerial warfare beyond the range of medium-
heavy artillery was sought. The offer was rejected.*

On Friday, May 10, 1940, the open town of Freiburg,
outside the zone of military operations, was bombed by
the aeroplanes of the Western Powers. Fifty-three civil-
ians including twenty children playing in a public garden
were killed and 151 civilians injured. Mr. Taylor of the
American Red Cross reported the incident in the New
York Times of May 18, 1940.

This was the first bombing of civilian populations in
defenseless towns outside the zone of military operations.
The Germans protested and continued to protest without
retaliation as Allied planes continued the bombardment
of civilian populations. After some months the German
military authorities warned that the retaliation not yet
resorted to would come if bombing of civilians and un-
protected cities outside the battle zones continued.

The bombing did not cease.

It would appear that it did not cease because the
Allies sought retaliation for propaganda purposes. Re-
taliation came with the bombing of London in September,
1940.

Hitler’s desire to limit aerial warfare to battle-zones
had been set at naught.

*See Appendix II, page 112.
110

111

With the increasing bombing of civilian population
Hitler’s addresses began to mention the war of extermi-
nation. The Allied purposes gave all the appearances of
an endeavor to exterminate the German population. (The
senseless and almost complete obliteration of Dresden,
one of the most beautiful cities of old Europe, February
of 1945, is certainly an indication of the intent. Crowded
with refugees fleeing the Bolshevik terror in the East,
many thousands of civilians were killed. Subsequent events
since the termination of the conflict serve only to strength-
en belief in a planned program of extermination.) The
Germans began to take counter-measures against those
within their reach whom they considered responsible.

Had not Samuel Landman written in his pamphlet
GREAT BRITAIN, THE JEWS AND PALESTINE (New
Zionist Publications, London 1936):

“.. . the fact that it was Jewish help that brought
the U.S. A. into the War on the side of the Allies (1917
—Ed.) has rankled ever since in German—especially
Nazi minds—and has contributed in no small measure
to the prominence which anti-semitism occupies in the
Nazi program.” ?

Of the making of the peace of 1919, Dr. E. J. Dillon
of the London Daily Telegraph wrote in his book THE IN-
SIDE STORY OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE (Harpers,
1920) that the delegates to the Conference from Eastern
Europe set down the formula:

“ ‘Henceforth the world will be governed by the
Anglo-Saxon people, who in turn are swayed by their
Jewish elements’... and who regard it as fatal to the
peace of Eastern Europe.” (Page 497.)

Had not Samuel Untermeyer made for World Jewry
a declaration of war against Germany over the American
radio station WABC on August 7, 1933, when he spoke of

(£
.

. . the holy war in the cause of humanity in
which we are embarked’’?

Did not the Jewish author, Theodore N. Kaufman,

112

in his book GERMANY MUST PERISH (Argyle Press,
Newark, N. J., 1941) recommend the extermination of the
Germany people by sterilization?

Can the Jews blame other than themselves for all that
has happened to them in Europe?

Hitler, in his speeches, spoke of the international as-
pects of the Jewish people as a man who had to deal in
daily affairs with this problem as a world force effecting
his country. His addresses are available to anyone who
will take the trouble to read them. But there are better
theoreticians on this matter than Hitler.

One is the Israelite scholar Bernard Lazare, already
mentioned on page 38.

Another is Theodore Herzl and from him I will quote
but one short paragraph:

“When we sink we become a revolutionary prole-
tariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary
parties, and at the same time, when we rise, there rises
also our terrible power of the purse.” (The Jewish State,
page 26, Central Office of the Zionist Organization,
London, 1934.)

Hitler never wrote anything more devastating than
that.

Appendix II

WHAT THE WORLD REJECTED—HITLER’S PEACE
OFFER OF APRIL 1, 1936

In 1936 Hitler sent notes to the British government
advocating outlawing of the bomber type plane and of air
bombing.

In Geneva, Anthony Eden, then British Foreign Sec-

113

retary, defended the bomber as an “effective and hu-
mane police weapon” in maintaining law and order among
the unruly tribes in some of the British colonies.

On April 1, 1936, according to records of the Geneva
League of Nations, Joachim von Ribbentrop, then Ger-
man Ambassador to London, delivered a note from Hitler
on a European pacification plan in which, among other
proposals for limitation of arms, he proposed:

Prohibition of dropping of gas, poisonous or incen-
diary bombs.

Prohibition of dropping bombs of any kind whatso-
ever on open localities outside the range of medium ar-
tillery on fighting fronts.

Prohibition of bombardment with long-range guns
of places more than 12 miles distant from battle zones.

Abolition and prohibition of artillery of heaviest
type.

The note added:

“The German government hereby declare them-
selves prepared to accede to every such arrangement in-
sofar as it is internationally valid.

“The German government believes if only a first
step is taken on the road to disarmament, this will have
an enormous effect on relations between nations and
consequently to the return of that atmosphere of con-

fidence which is the prior condition for the develop-
ment of trade and prosperity.”

Eden, in his reply to von Ribbentrop five weeks later,
on May 6, 1986, said the German memorandum ‘is most
important and deserving of careful study.” (Excerpt from
Karl von Wiegand’s cable from Rome, 19th Nov. 1946, to
the New York Journal-American.)

Appendix IH

NUREMBERG TRIALS

2nd October 1946
The Editor of The Times (London)
Sir:

Judged by the Nuremberg Law many of the men most
honoured in history must be adjudged felons deserving of
hanging. If aggression and fomenting war between states
is criminal, it would seem strange to posterity that Na-
poleon’s remains should rest enshrined as on an altar
beneath the dome of the Invalides while Ribbentrop’s are
buried beneath a gallows. Among the charges brought
against this particular accused is that he helped his fel-
low Germans of the Sudetenland against the Czechoslo-
vak government. But Cavour, Mazzini and Garibaldi de-
voted their lives, with the general applause of posterity,
to fomenting insurrections among the Italians of Lombardy
and Venetia against their lawful Austrian sovereign.

Another of Ribbentrop’s “crimes” was signing the
order incorporating Austria in the Reich. Apart from
the fact that this was done with the approval of at least
a considerable body of Austrians, wherein is the unfor-
tunate German’s guilt greater than that of Dr. Jameson’s
who in 1896 levied war on the Transvaal; or that of Cecil
Rhodes and Sir Alfred Milner, both of whom certainly
worked for the destruction of the two Boer Republics and
their incorporation in the British Empire? We did not
hang Jameson when he was handed over to us by the Boer
government.

Americans know too, that many of their countrymen
held that Lincoln was not justified in coercing the seced-

ing states by force of arms. Then he, with Sherman and
Sheridan, the authors of the practice of “frightfulness” in

114

115

war, should hang in effigy beside the former German am-
bassador to the Court of St. James.

Another charge against the ex-diplomat is that he
approved the lynching of allied aviators carrying out ma-
chine-gun attacks on the civilian population. There are
still British people who believe this form of attack was
peculiar to the other side. I remain,

Yours faithfully,
EDMUND B. D’AUVERGNE.

Appendix IV

APPOINTMENTS

J. Pulitzer, Jewish Editor and Publisher of the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, is reported as urging that the en-
tire German General Staff, the industrialists and finan-
ciers, and almost all, if not all the members of the Ges-
tapo and S. S. should be shot as war criminals.

The behind-the-scenes organizer of the International
Military Tribunal to try “war criminals” is Judge Samuel
I. Rosenman, Jewish adviser to the late President Roose-
velt and to President Truman.

John J. O’Donnel, in his column Capitol Stuff, New
York Daily News, 16th May 1946, writes:

“The job as chief prosecutor at the war crimes
trial at Nurnberg was, of course, a carefully planned
political build-up for (Justice Robert) Jackson, the
candidate for Governor of New York. The record and
legal philosophy developed at Nurnberg have utterly
destroyed any standing that Jackson might have as an
exponent of justice under law, but the boys still figure
that the shabby performance can be transmuted into
votes.” (Evidently “the boys” changed their minds—it
was too shabby.)

116

Allied Mission for German Reparations in Moscow has
as its members:

American—Isador Lubin.
Polish—The Jewish Somerstajn.
British—The Jewish Sir David Waley
French—The Jewish Rueff.

Austrian Provisional Government:

The head of this government is Karl Renner... On
the 22nd June 1928 he wrote to President Masaryk of
Czechoslovakia asking him to assist ‘in the interests
of humanity” the escape of Bela Kun (known as Cohen,
and leader of the red terror in Hungary and Spain)
who was in Austria and wanted to go back to Russia.
Renner said that he had enabled Kun to escape from
Hungary to Russia on a former occasion (1919).

UNRRA—United Nations Relief and Rehabilita-
tion Administration:

It’s director-general was the Jewish Herbert Leh-
man. He was succeded by Fiorello La Guardia of
many Jewish connections. His wife is Jewish. Their
adopted children profess the Protestant faith.

Director General Lehman earlier in the year called
British General Sir Frederick E. Morgan to New York
to report on his statement of a well organized plan of
the Jews, looking prosperous and well fed, to get out
of Europe—a second exodus, he called it. Arriving in
Berlin, with plenty of money, they certainly do not look
like a persecuted people, he said. Mr. Lehman exoner-
ated General Morgan of any intent to belittle the plight
of the Jews.

On August 21, 1946, the present Director General
La Guardia is reported to have found it “possible to
release General Morgan.” He will be replaced by
Meyer Cohen.

117

UNRRA has many Jews on its staff: H. Alphand
in France, in the Welfare Division is H. Greenstein; A.
J. Rosemen was deputy chief in the Balkans; M. Gotts-
chalk was a liaison officer in Frankfort. The UNRRA
is not permitted to operate in Germany or Western
Europe. '

Mr. La Guardia made a vicious attack on the Chi-
cago Tribune when questioned about UNRRA funds.

UNO—United Nations Organization appointments:

Chairman of Committee to set up commission on
control of Atomic Energy: The Jewish D. J. Manuilsky,
Soviet Ukraine.

American member of the United Nations commis-
sion on Atomic Energy: Bernard Baruch. The Times
(London) 19th March 1946 says “to him will be made
over the results of the preliminary study of the problem
of nuclear “fission,” and David Lilienthal.

Assistant Secretary-General in charge of informa-
tion is Benjamin Cohen.

American Representative on the Committee on
UNRRA: Rep. Sol Bloom, also Chief of the Foreign Af-
fairs Committee of the House of Representatives.

General Counsel to the Secretary-General: Abra-
ham Feller.

Spanish Republican Government to replace Franco:

President: Diego Martinez Barrios, Grand Master
of Spanish Grand Orient Freemasons.

Prime Minister: J. Giral, a Grand Orient Mason.

Foreign Secretary: The Jewish de los Rios.
Various National Appointments:

Ambassador Extraordinary for Economic and Fi-
nancial Missions abroad for France: Leon Blum.

118

Charge d’Affaires for Poland in U. S. A. (Wash-
ington): Jewish Stephan Littauer (See Chapter I).

Consul General for Poland in U. S. A.; The Jewish
J. Galewski.

Under-Secretary of State U. S. A.: Dean Acheson
once the private secretary to Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
He obtained his first important appointment through
the influence of Justice Felix Frankfurter.

Official Observer in the Atom Bombing of Naga-
saki: The Jewish journalist W. L. Lawrence.

French spokesman in Moscow re: plans for Rhur
and Rhineland: The Jewish H. Alphand.

Lord Chief Justice of Britain: Lord Goddard; his
wife is a Jewess Schuster.

Canadian Espionage Case, 1946:

The majority of the accused are Jewish. Fred
Rose, the Communist M. P., whose real name is Rosen-
berg, and Sam Carr, whose real name is Cohen.

READ MARXISM AND JUDAISM, by Salluste.

A scholarly study of an important influence disturb-
ing the peace of the world. A translation from the Revue
de Paris. Price, 3 shillings.

Bibliography

A la Veille de la Renaissance, Eberlin.

American Hebrew.

American Journal of Semitic Languages.

Atlantic Monthly.

Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C.

Case of Tyler Kent, John Howland Snow, Domestic and Foreign

Affairs,

Century Magazine.

Chicago Tribune.

Cleveland News.

Coningsby, 1844.

Daily Express (London).

Daily Mail (London).

Daily Sketch (London).

Daily Telegraph (London).

Disgrace Abounding, Douglas Reed, Jonathan Cope.

Economist (London).

Evening News (London).

Evening Standard (London).

Financial News (London).

Financial (Times).

Foreign Capital in Poland, L. Wellicz.

Germany Must Perish, Theo Kaufman, Argyl Press, 1940.

Great Contemporaries, Winston Churchill.

Guerilla Warfare.

Hand Book No. 43, Poland.

Hebrew Origins, J. T. Meek, Harpers, 1936. ;

Inside Story of the Peace Conference, E. J. Dillon, Harpers, 1920.

It Might Have Happened To You.

Jewish Chronicle (London)

Jewish Post

Jewish World.

La Revue de Paris.

La Vie de Tangier.

Leninism, Stalin.

Life (U. S. A.)

Life of Arnold, Dean Staley.

Life of Lord George Bentinck.

London Times.

Manchester Guardian.

Marxism and Judaism, by Salluste, La Revue de Paris, Juillet Aout,
1928. First English translation. A scholarly study of an important
influence disturbing the peace of the world. Price three shillings.

Masonic Chronicler, Waterloo, Wise., U. S. A.

New Leader (New York).

New York Daily News.

New York Journal-American.

New York Times.

Nineteenth Century.

A People’s Runnymede, R. J. Scrutton, Andrew Dakers, 1924.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Sunday Chronicle (London).

Sunday Express (London).

The Jews and Palestine, Samuel Landman.

The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl.

Toronto Evening Telegram.

Unfinished Victory, Arthur Bryant, Macmillian, 1940.

Washington Star.

Index

A
Abadié, - Ji-reresae 98
Aboulker, H.------------- _. 97
Absentee ownership.. 107
Acheson, Dean....._-.....-.-.---.--------- 118
Aggression
Britain and France
against Germany .----------------- 26

Germany against Poland....3, 5
Soviet Ally against
Esthonia, Latvia and
Lithuania...
against Finland..
against Poland.-------------------
Aliens bill (1904),

Churchill aids
Alington, Dr.,

a Christian on war.............--- 35
Alphand, H........0...00000--..---.
American Hebrew...
Amery z
Anti-nazi League---------------.--------
Anti-semitism causes

war......-.- ---18, 85, 86, 108-9
Arnold, Dr,- 38, 39
Atlantic Monthly... 32
Atrocities

Alied i ee

Shooting PWs.
Azores

Baker, Noel

Aids underground in

Germany vavava- 72
Balfour Declaration..-----------. 29, 77
Barbusse, Henri.--------------------------- 63
Barrios: oeoo tte NAS 117
Baruch, Bernard. , 117
Bearsted, Lord..............--..-...-.---- 91
Bëck; | Colsena2 2530 ed 2
Bentinck, Lord George.. . 81
Bentwich, Norman...._.- . 99

Berkani, A.__.......... . 98
Bernays, R.........-.----.--------- . 94
Bernstein, Col. Bernard --100
Bevin, Ernest... . 95
Bialik _.W........ .. 80
Bloch, Pucat iieii 98
Bloom, Sol 97, 117
Blum, Leon._.. 22 117
Bodoglio ___o.2...2.222e eee nee enn 98
Boer Republics ...-_..........-....--.----- 114
Bombing Civilians ---------------------- 110

Hitler sought to outlaw
in 1936

Bottai
Bovenschen, Sir F., C.---------------- 90
Boycotts.____...--------------- 69, 82, 84, 85
See Jews
Bracken, Brenden............-...-.----- 85
Bretton Woods os
Bright, John ..........--...-..-------
Britain
Russian aid necessary
to crush Germany.......... 56, 57
War with Germany de-
pends on Poland ....._....... 2, 58
War with Japan de-
pends on U. S, A... 58
Brown, David A.

Jews want war on Germany 69
Brown, 9
Bullitt,
Burgin, L.

Canary Islands

invasions of planned.............. 23
Carlyle, Thomas

on democracy ............-.----.-.------ 43
Carnegie Institute

Roosevelt genealogy...........-..-- 25
Carr, Sam (Cohen)... ....118

Carsain -no-n .. 98
Cavour -...-...-. 114
Cazalet, Thelma..._......0-.22....-..---- 91
Chamberlain, Ne-

Willem: 22 nea 2, 70, 89, 95
Chamberlain, Sir Austen.......... 86
Chandler, Senator --- 22
Chicherin _........... _ 97
China ereer tise 44
Chornyakhovsky -. _.. 97
Chosen people idea een eee 38
Christianity betrayed

by churchmen..........-.. 31, 32, 35
Churchill, Winston

Aids Jewish immigration

to Britain (1904).....-.--------- 93
And Bernard Baruch __ 45, 92
And Rothschilds ._........-... 45, 92
Associations and connec-

TIONG! eona eres eei I, 92
Condemns Commun-

İSM ii 44, 45, 51, 104
Defends Fascism... 52
Praises Hitler...---------.----

Ciano: 222. see

Clark, Senator B. C.
Exposes Hollywood war-
mongering -ooon 72

120

Clark, Gen’l Mark... 34
Clemenceau

on democracy._...............-...-— 43
Cohen, Benjamin... 117
Cohen, Meyer... 116
Communism explained.__........... 80

Coniff, Frank
Shooting PWs

Coningsby _..--2...-- eee eee
D
Daladier 002. ee eee 46
Davies, Joseph E.
Peace with Hitler Ger-
many possible.----------------------- 19
Hitler sought peace
with Britain. 20
Davis, R. J.
Britain and Poland..._.......... 8
Democracy
Alliance with dictators....13, 44
And _ Irresponsibility.__...... 40, 41
Carlyle—no nation can
subsist on... ae 43
Clemenceau—government
by inferiors.-------------------------- 43
Death of Britannia... 9
Dictatorship of Jewish
money powetr......... ~- 11
Goethe—calls odious -.- - 42

Macauley condemns.-... P
Mills calls hurtful... 43
Stifles resistance to
communism..............---..---
Tool for communists.........

De la Warr, Earl..._-....-....--...--
Devonshire, Duke of...
Dillon, Dr. EB. J.o-
Disraeli
On revolution...............-...
Government by anony-

Dresden, bombing of...........-..---- 111
Duff-Cooper..............--.----- 25, 70, 95

Eberlin
Economist, London..............-.-..-- 95
Condemns Potsdam
Agreement
Eden, Anthony
And the planners
l eA yy Picci colitis Bat ees
Comments on Hitler’s
peace plans of 1936__... 111-12
Edmondson, Robt. E............--...-- 69

Eighteen B, see Regulation
Eili, Eili, Jewish cry

of triumph. 84
Bire A oea E A he ne 24
Eisenhower, Gen’l Dwight........ 100
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

On Jewish war... 86
Equality

Jewish exploitation of

exposed by Dr. Rugby... 38
F
Fascism
Praised by Churchill... 51
Praised by British resi-
dents of Florence._......... 52

Intl Iabour Office fa-
vours principles of............. 53
Feller, Abraham -~-----.---------------- 117
Finland... 20... ee eee 6, 29
Ford, Henry
Jewish financiers cause war 77

BOX eves tee tees, Selves 13
France, _.. 98
Frankfurter, Felix --.-.---------------- 118
Freemasonry

Political Influence..

King George...............

Honoured by stamp..
Freiburg bombing......
Frièd eani ees ee

Galewski, J.----n----a---v0-0--2- -022-000 118
Gamarnik .... --- 80
Garbett, Dr.. . 31
Garibaldi __._........ ---114
George, Kin..............----.----------- 106
Germany

And Poland...---.----------------------- 1-4

Dismemberment of by

Britain and France... 27

Gilmour, Sir J. L es

Giral
Gloucester, Bishop
Christian Churches un-

molested by Germans.......... 32
Christian Church destroyed

by Soviets -... 101
Goethe on democracy................ 43

Goga, Prime Minister of
Romania, sought to curb
Jewish influence........... 46, 82

Gusev

122

H
Halifax, Lord... 2
Hamwee, Av... eee 99
Hankey, Lord------------------------------- 95
Harewood, Earl of... 106
Hebrew OTiBİnS---.------------------------ 39
Heine, Heinrich...................-....- 39
Herzl, Theodor_................ 63, 112

Hess, Rudolph, peace mission.. 66
Hitler, Adolf, iii, iv
Aware of Jewish
intrigue 112
Churchill admires._.............. - 51
Knew world war makers _60-1
Peace offers rejected by
“Christian” powers.......... 32, 64,
66, 71, 110, 112-3

Trade by barter.........-...-. 48-9
Hoare, Sir S
Hollywood promotes war.......... 72
Hore, Sir A......
Hore-Belisha, L. ’
Hull, Cordell... 9

Iceland, occupation of................ 22

International Labour Office
Favours German National
Socialist Labour Program 53
Favours Fascist Principles... 53
International Military Trib-

tinal) eee eee 115
EY b o ates Siete tae che 23
Italy prosperous

under Fascism...................-.-.. 52

J
Jabotinski, Vladimir.................... 15

Jackson, Robert...
Jameson, Dr......

Japan. Loene . 58
Jefferson, Thomas --.------------------- 38
Jews
American Hebrew predicts
destruction of Hitler... 82

Boycott Germany......69, 82, 84-5
British betray Arabs in
deal to involve U. S.

Christians judaized.
Declare war on Germany

hs Seemann an 83-4, 88, 111
1938: niet ee cee 81
And democracy . 41-2
Exploit equality...........-.....--.. 37-8

Feeling of inferiority

explained _. ue. -0 39
Get U. S. A. into World

War Tc. 3 ie ee 29, 77, 111
Gold and poweyv....-.............---- 41

Jewish Chronicle (London)
confirms war was Jewish .109
Journalism
Make illegal to criticize... 107
Penetration of Western

Society described ......... .--. 61-2
78, 96, 111
Promote international
enmities ....................69, 70, 75

And race .......... ..... 68,
And revolution.......... 63, 80, 112
Times (London) confirrns

war was Jewish............... 50
Times (New York) con-
firms war was Jewish .... 101

Threaten British Empire ..... 75
Threaten to disturb

peace of Europe .............. 74-5
Threaten war on account

of Palestine —......00.... 74, 107
And the underground............101

And world domination
through United Nations
and war of survival. 48, 80

Jones, Edgar Lycee OS
K

Kaganoviteh ........0..-2..-...------+- 90, 94
Katin Massacre... 02-20-00... 6, 7
Kemal Ataturk... 46
Kent, Tyler okeanu 14
Kerensky...._..... = 8, 17
Kisch, Sir Cecil... 91
Kitson, Arthur ._ 105
Koenig, Genl J. oo... ee 98
Komlosi -_.............. Serama OT
Kun, Bela... .- 97, 116
La Guardia, Fiorello ........ 116-17
Landman, Samuel Peper ia O
Lang, Dr..........-..2...------ ... 30
Langer, Senator _ ---100
Latvia -aa . 25
Lawrence, W. Le-a.. i eeeeee 118
Lazare, Bernard .__. ... 38, 63, 112
Lebor Soa tenine 98
Leese, Arnold

persecution of .............. iv, 10, 15

16, 86, 87, 90, 108
Foresaw Jewish war in 1933 68
Lehman, Herbert 0...
Leninism PERSI Ls
Levy, Oscar 2.00002.

Liberation and anarchy............ 101
Lilienthal, David _.......... p

Lincoln, Abraham ...
Lindsay, Kenneth...
Lippman, Walter...
Lipsky, Stephan..._.......--.......

Lithuania oe
Litvinoff

Locker, 75
Locker-Lampson, Commr. . 94
LOZOVSKY:: vecten ete ee es 97
Lubin, Isador-------------------------------- 116
Lyttleton, Oliver.------------------------ 55

Macauley, Lord, on democracy 42
MacDonald, Malcolm ...............

MacDonald, Ramsay....
MacMahon, Sir Henry................

Maisky: 22.22. ee
Manuilsky, D. Z...........-....
Marcovitch, J. Eu...
Marlborough, Duke of..

Marx, “Karlin ccchcee ees
Marxism and Judaism .39, 78, re
Masaryk: remen nna teens

Mattuck, Rabbi ..........-.....-2.-..- ni
Maugham, Lord... a
Mazzini
Medina, Soloman. 5
Meek, James T..........-.-.---.---.---.---- 39
Mendelssohn, Moses.................... 39
Mendes-France
Mensdorff, Count
Israel won war 1914-18... 76
Messingsohn, Dr. B... 75

Meyer, Georges.....--.--.-----no---- -2 98
Meyer, Rene... .. 98
Mikloshi -.............-.-.---.-.-- . 98
Mill, J. S., on democracy.......... 43
Millner, Sir Alfred........--..-.-.-----. 114
11) Co) Xe) Ke) | a 97
Monthoux .......-.2.-------------2eceeeeeeneee 98

Morgan, Gen'l Sir Frederick 116
Morgenthau, Henry Jr., and

the Morgenthau Plan... 98
99, 100, 105
Morrison, Herbert.........-.........-.- 14
Against war in 1914........... 86
For war in 1939.................. 87
Mortlock, Rev. ©. B.........-...-..--- 108

Moseley, Gen. C. H.

Sensitive to Jewish influ-
ence in U. S. Av... 72
Munich .......-.W..--- -.

Mussolini, Benito

N
Nathan, Lord |... 75
Neimoller, Pastor
A political agitator............. 32
Neo - Messianism.._...................- 39
Nichols, Beverly
A Jewish war... -2-2 ----- 85
Non-fraternization Order..... .... 101
Nuremburg
Celebration 00. 2.2.22... 70
Trial
Nye, A. E
Oliver, Vic... 2. 92
Oumansky
O'Donnell,
P
Palestine ........0 2220s 29, 77

Patton, General

Belittled de-Nazification .......101
Perlzweig, Rabbi M. L............... 84
Persecution

Of Arnold Leese......... iv, 10, 16

Regulation 18B 2.2.00... 14

Christians by the Soviets 30, 101
Persia
Occupation by Britain
and Soviets.........22....0.--....---
Peuche, judicial murder... 98,
Political Economic Plan-
ning (P. E. P.) 10, 91
Jewish influence
OPA, effect on America.. i
Monopoly ~....-.0.-22- 000-000000-
Pitt
Poland, a Jewish interest .
Pope, on communism ...............
Potsdam Declaration........
Press
Sought war with Ger-

Many -yan eiS 65, 71
Forgot Katin massacre.......... 8
Pulitzer, Joseph -115
Payde, Moọoishe..--...-.--------------------- 98
R
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M........ 14, 96
Ravage, M. E.. 76
Regulation 18B... 14, ‘16, 78, 87, 90
Reith, Sir John... 95
Reitz, Col. D..... . 36
Renner, Karl... -116
Repington, Col. C. -76
Rhodes, Cecil.-..-------------------- 114
Ribbentrop, Joachim von .....113-4

Rifkind, Judge Samuel H... 100

124

Adviser to Gen. Eisenhower
and McNarney on de-
nazification

Roosevelt, Pres.............-- 25, 36, 50
Rose, Fred (Rosenberg)
Rosebery, Lord.....................

Roseman, A. J...
Rosenman, Samuel..
Rothschilds................

And Churchill

AN: JO3T iae e edechces och ahaa ace
Labor party . p
Sidonia
And Sikorsky.

Rumania
Dismissal of Goga, act of

dictatorship applauded
by press

Runciman,
Russia
And Poland... 5 6
And Esthonia, Latvia
and Lithuania... 25
And Christianity... 30, 101

Salazar
Salluste i
San Francisco Conference... 27
Sassoon, Sir Phillip....... 70, 90, an
Scheinine
Schoenfeld, R. E ca
Schultz, Rabbi i dace Las cen aa ce
Sears, Capt.
Removes Hitler’s wreath

from Centotaph...... ...... 68
Selbourne, Ear] of..... ... 24
Sherman, Gen......... ...114
Shertok, Moishe_.. 84
Sidonia 20.2 ee 65
Sieff, Moses Israel....11, 70, 91, 94
Sikorski E EE dct EEI 6
Silver, Rabbi A. R. -4
Simon, Lord.............. --- 90
Smith, Goldwin.... .. 76
Smuts, Gen. Jan.. . 69
Sobesi _..........--.---- _. 97
Somerstajn, E........-..--.-.-.-.------- 116
Soulbury, Lord (Rams-

botham) .-----------------------------4------- 91
Southwood, Lord (Elias)....... 95
Spain ssc ee os tae -- 24
Stalin _.........-.... -105
Stanhope, Lord_............-...--.-- 91

Stein, B.
Steinhardt, L.
Stoddard, Lothrop

On German desire for peace 66
Stokes, Richard D................- iv, 10
Strachey, John

Influenced Rothschild to

join Labour Party._........... 62
Strakosch, H . 91, 95
Sudtenland _220.2-.2ee ee 114
Sulzberger, Arthur Hayes........ 101

T
Toeplitz, Guiseppe -..--.------.--. ---
Transvaal -2m m-

Truman, President
Turkey

U
Unconditional Surrender..........102
UNRRA ah eanet arit cece enn 117
Untermeyer, Samuel
Organized boycott of
Germany ....0....-2.22..-- 69, 85

Declares holy war on

Versailles Treaty... 00... ~- 28
Vatican
Prefers communism to
bet VAC) 6: ia 31
WwW

Wall Street, Jewish influence..105
Wallenber, Marcus............2.... 99
Warr, Earl de la... 91
Wedgewood, Co.......
Weizmann, Chaim.
Welles, Summer.......

Wellisez, L.......... 3
Winkler _u. 99
Wise, Rabbi S. S... 107

Wolfe, Humbert....__.
Wood, Kingsley...
Woolton, Lord.....

Yerusalemsky 26
Yureneff oo. cette 97
Zetland, Marquis of... 91
Zionists

Get U. S. into War 1917_...... 77
At war with Britain... 75, 107
Zunz, Leopold 9

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Jewish War Of Survival ( 1947)"

See other formats